The Concept of Supremacy and Direct Effect in European Law

This article discusses the concept of supremacy and direct effect in European Law and their impact on the formation and development of EU law uniform. It also covers the role of the European Court of Justice in integrating the European Community. The article cites various cases and references for further reading.

European Law

The conception of supremacy provides assurance that the direct effect concept has its
intentional coordinated effect on the formation and development of EU law uniform. The ECJ
law stated that the Community law should be in the higher level in comparison to the national
law. Thus, if any conflict ever happens between Community law and national law then the
Community law will be considered more important than the National law. The consideration
and petition of the superiority of EU law is reliant on the national constitutional adaption1.
The supernationalism consisted of dual character within the community system. The court
stated that it is not sure that the supremacy would be protected by the member states. The
European Court of Justice stated that a united cooperation is needed for the survival of the
community because unification is significant to the legitimacy, legal democracy and
security2. Moreover, the Court states that thought of integration in the treaty must be
considered as the Communities fundamental idea. The coordination process between the
Community and its members should not be stopped or hindered by the reluctance of many
states by creating different laws. The Members of States National are being bounded by the
judgments of the ECJ, and this makes Community Law need to be obeyed. The power is not
granted on European Union or the Community, like the Irish Constitution, abortion,
Bunreacht na, continually exercising an incompetent jurisdiction. The most important
essential of EU law is to protect the rights of the citizens3.
The direct effect had been developed in a renowned case named van Gend en Loos. This
doctrine is being applied by the court as per the rules and regulations. The rules were being
developed in van Duyn v Home office that was to be followed by the National Court. The
rule should have its direct effect and should be clear and stated in exact terms; it has to be
unquestioning or should not be dependent. And it should be conscious about the rights of the
individuals to support their claim4. When the Treaty was being explained by the Court, the
intention and the soul of the conformance of the community was being examined. In this
case, the court identifies the Treaty is not implementing direct effect but also the instructions
laid down for their request. It explains the meaning of "Public Policy" depicting the
explanation for detracting from a primary belief of Community. It was allowing the liberty of
1 Morten RASMUSSEN, 'The Origins of A Legal Revolution – The Early History of the European Court
Of Justice' (2008) 14 Journal of European Integration History.
2 Karen Davies, Understanding Eu Law (10th edn, Taylor and Francis 2012).
3 John J Kirton and Jelena Madunic, Global Law (8th edn, Ashgate 2009).
4 Malcolm D Evans, International Law (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2018).
1

movement to the workers. It was being justified by the European Court of Justice that the
society needs to create a new law as per the international law so that it can provide a benefit
of sovereign rights to the States. The fundamental principle has been concluded by the court
from this5. A new legal order has been constituted by the community. This has given a right
to the states for having limited their sovereign rights. Not only the responsibilities was being
forced on individuals but also proposed to grant them rights that can be a part of their
legal birthright. All the rights emerge not only to those areas where they have been
established by the treaties but also by causing to the commitment that it is being forced by the
treaty in clear defined way on the members of the states as well as the individuals and also
community institutions.
The European Court of Justice created the direct effect principle in the Van Gend en Loos
case. In this case, the judgment was based on the restrictions on the quantitative measures and
the equivalent impact on the free movement of the products. The rulings changed the
relationships between member states in the community. The harmonization of the community
was being tried by the European Court of Justice ensuring that the rules and regulations are
subjected to the community law6. The court established principles and policies in relation to
the free movement of products for achieving equality between the member states. The lack of
policy was being recognized by the court in the following area and motivated commission for
setting out rules for addressing the area. The court after analysing the lack of policy
introduced a new mutual recognition concept. The European Court of Justice was being
progressive and innovative in its role of creating a new law making process. The main
objective of the direct effect was to create uniformity amongst the state members for
maximizing the usefulness of the community law.
Costa V Enel case depicted that the Italian court stated that the Italian legislation and law
should be given priority because the European Court treaty is post-dated. If the European
Court of Justice were obliged for validating this claim then the desired doctrine of direct
effect will be undermined severely. The judges of European Court of Justice concluded from
Article 288 TFEU and Article 4 TFEU stating that transfer of power was being there to the
5 Trevor C Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law (6th edn, Oxford University
Press 2010).
6 Matej Avbelj, 'Supremacy Or Primacy Of EU Law-(Why) Does It Matter?' (2011) 17 European Law
Journal.
2

community by the member states7. Thus, the principle of supremacy was being created by the
judges for empowering the doctrine of the direct effect. The step was taken because if any
disagreement occurs between EU law and national law then the latter takes priority. The
relationships between the doctrines are dependent on each other but the impact will be limited
that results in imperfect European integration. European Court of Justice in the Simmenthal
case focused on the supremacy of the European law legislation impacts both future and prior
legislation. The case was on paying a fee for the inspection of public health when importing
beef from Italy to France8. The Italian law was being passed in the year 1970 on which the
case was judged. The national courts were held to comply with the Community provisions
and do not apply conflicting national legislation provision.
The Macarthys v Smith case shows that Macarthys employed Mrs Smith as the stockroom
manager. For that position, the previous employee had been paid a higher wage in
comparison to Mrs Smith. The case was judged on the basis of the Equal Pay Act 1970 which
explained that women and men employed in the same hob position need to be paid equally.
The women and men employed at the same job at a different time need to be paid equally9.
As per Article 119, European Court of Justice held equal pay for women and men whether
they are employed in succession or contemporaneously. The Garland v British Rail
Engineering Ltd case shows that British Rail offered travel concessionary amenities to the
children of the male employees and it was not provided for the children of the women
employees. The case was judged the case on the basis of discrimination contrary as per
Article 119. European Court of Justice made an appropriate decision as per the law10. The
relationship between the direct effect and supremacy is being well established within the
European Community. The European Court Justice has played a significant role in integrating
the European Community.
7 Tadeusz Ereciński, 'Supremacy, Direct Effect And Consistent Interpretation—Tools For An Effective
And Uniform Application Of European Union Law?' (2010) 11 ERA Forum.
8 Alec Stone Sweet, 'The European Court Of Justice And The Judicialization Of EU Governance' [2010]
SSRN Electronic Journal.
9 Elise Muir, 'The Court Of Justice In The Novel System For The Protection Of Fundamental Rights In
The EU' [2012] SSRN Electronic Journal.
10 A. Ciampi, 'The Potentially Competing Jurisdiction Of The European Court Of Human Rights And
The European Court Of Justice' (2009) 28 Yearbook of European Law.
3

References
Avbelj M, 'Supremacy Or Primacy Of EU Law-(Why) Does It Matter?' (2011) 17 European
Law Journal
Ciampi A, 'The Potentially Competing Jurisdiction Of The European Court Of Human Rights
And The European Court Of Justice' (2009) 28 Yearbook of European Law
Davies K, Understanding Eu Law (10th edn, Taylor and Francis 2012)
Ereciński T, 'Supremacy, Direct Effect And Consistent Interpretation—Tools For An
Effective And Uniform Application Of European Union Law?' (2010) 11 ERA Forum
Evans M, International Law (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2018)
Hartley T, The Foundations Of European Community Law (6th edn, Oxford University Press
2010)
Kirton J Madunic, Global Law (8th edn, Ashgate 2009)
Muir E, 'The Court Of Justice In The Novel System For The Protection Of Fundamental
Rights In The EU' [2012] SSRN Electronic Journal
RASMUSSEN M, 'The Origins Of A Legal Revolution – The Early History Of The European
Court Of Justice' (2008) 14 Journal of European Integration History
Stone Sweet A, 'The European Court Of Justice And The Judicialization Of EU Governance'
[2010] SSRN Electronic Journal
4

5