Supremacy and Direct Effects Contributions to the Achievement of CJEU

This article discusses the contributions of supremacy and direct effects to the achievement of the Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

1
Supremacy and direct effects contributions to the achievement of CJEU
Name:
Course:
Date:

2
Table of Contents
Introduction..............................................................................................................................3
Analysis of the courts of justice of the EU (CJEU)................................................................3
Supremacy and direct effects contribution to the achievement of CJEU...................................3
Description of supremacy doctrine of courts of justice of the EU (CJEU)………………………….3
The contribution of supremacy to the achievement of the courts of justice of the EU..............5
Direct effects doctrine of CJEU.................................................................................................6
The contribution of direct effects on the achievement of CJEU................................................7
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................7
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................9

3
Supremacy and direct effects contribution to the achievement of CJEU
Introduction
Analysis of the courts of justice of the EU (CJEU)
Courts of justice of EU (CJEU) is a body of courts whose role is to develop laws for the
European Union. The courts are responsible for ruling out cases that arise in the union. The
courts are also responsible for enforcing laws developed by the union on behalf of the
members. In addition, the court determines the relevancy of the UK courts rules. The body
has several roles in the UK legal framework that include; the body decisions are responsible
for the integration of courts, that is, reference should be made to the laws before UK courts
decide on any matter concerning EU. Secondly, cases concerning the UK and its relation with
other EU members brought to UK courts are often passed to CJEU for a ruling. Also, cases
undertaken by the local courts must be judged with respect to the confirmation from the
CJEU. The law is developed under article 267 of the treaty on the function of the European
Union1. In addition, the court is responsible for judging cases involving the EU institutions.
Article 263 of TFEU gives UK the power to report EU institutions to CJEU in cases where
the institutions fail to abide by the law of EU. Lastly, the court is responsible for judging
cases brought by EU member states against the UK. The mandate is prescribed in article 258
of TFEU.
Description of supremacy doctrine of courts of justice of the EU (CJEU)
Among the key characteristics of CJEU is the supremacy of the courts. Normally, the
supremacy arises from the developed laws that seek to strengthen the courts. Among the key
developments that promoted the supremacy of CJEU includes the development of the
doctrine of the supremacy of community law. The doctrine was developed in the 1960’s and
was passed by European Union member states. The doctrine stated that in case a conflict
1 Hongarth, R. “Brexit and European Court of Justice.” Institute for Government. (2017), pp. 6

4
occurred following contradiction of the bodies’ law and those of a member country, the
member country laws becomes inapplicable2. The development ensured that EU laws were
above member country laws and will always remain effective. As a result, CJEU realized
supremacy against the laws of member countries. secondly, supremacy arises from the
development of the CJEU perspective that bounds member states under the EU laws given
that the body is a community. Despite the perspective going against the Vienna treaty, it
provides CJEU with authority over member states since they are placed under the EU laws3.
Lastly, the adoption of the Simmental decision diluted the effect of national laws in the cases
calling for EU intervention. The treaty stated that no national law would hinder the
application of community law in solving of a dispute more so from executing its full force. In
addition, the treaty stated that only the constitutional council had the power to declare the
relevancy of a national law to the activities of the EU. Also, it extended to state that any
national law that would hinder the application of the community law was to be set aside to
allow for the effect of the community law. The law effect on the UK was developed in the
Factortame and was upheld by the House of Lords as a term under the 1972 Act. Factortame
stated that UK courts were to override national laws that were found to be in conflict with
community laws while delivering their final judgment. Countries are also restricted from
developing laws that curtail the supremacy of EU to ensure the fidelity of CJEU.4 The court
also dictates that it is the only body that has the mandate to legalize a national law and to
allow take to take effect in a case. The decision can only be reached at after clear
2 Zang, S. “Supremacy of EU law: A comparative analysis.” University of Illiniois at Urbana-
Champaign. (2014), pp. 2
3 Zang, S. “Supremacy of EU law: A comparative analysis.” University of Illiniois at Urbana-
Champaign. (2014), pp. 3
4 Bruges Group. “Falling to hold back the incoming tide: Why EU law has supremacy over
national law and why attempts to reform will never succeed. (2016), pp.9

5
justifications have been presented by the parties involved in support for the national law
execution.
The contribution of supremacy to the achievement of the courts of justice of the EU
The body has realized a series of achievement in its activities. The achievement has been
realized following the application of various aspects including the application of the body
supremacy. Among the ways through which supremacy has contributed to the success of the
organization include; it has enhanced integration between member states.5 The integration has
been realized through the development of community laws that overrule the member states.
As a result, all countries are equally treated thus facilitating their satisfaction for membership
in the EU. Through the powers given to the CJEU, it has developed a necessary measure to
regulate the functioning of the community’s corporate market. The development has been
realized through the development of the golden share rights. The rights diluted the restrictions
imposed by the various member states to foreign investment6. The right was aimed at
enhancing corporate cooperation within member states and free movement of capital among
the member states. As a result, member states have realized corporate integration which is a
success to the court's body.
Direct effects doctrine of CJEU
The direct effect is often used by courts to protect the laws within their vicinity of
application. The doctrine was established after the development of the Van Gen den Loss
5 Werner, B. “Why is the Court of Justice of European Union accepted: Three mechanisms of
opposition abatement. Institute for intercultural and international studies. (2015), pp. 4
6 Morten, K. “European integration and European court of justice. Can European court of
justice be seen as a prointegrative institution.” University of Copenhagen, department of political
science, (2009), pp. 10

6
treaty (VGL).7 The treaty stated that courts were to protect treaties that safeguarded the
human rights in their countries including areas that are not known by international law. CJEU
made it clear that the application of direct effects by member states would be aimed at
developing the EU laws and not national laws.8 According to research conducted by a
worldwide network of reporters, it was revealed that the direct effect was being applied all
over the world with an aim to secure international laws. More so, the laws were being used to
develop judgment in various cases. Also, courts considered the application of international
laws whenever national laws proofed ineffective for judgment delivery. The direct effect has
been majorly focused on the field of human rights violation. For example, direct effect was
considered in the judgment delivery for the compensation of victims and criminalization
disappearances by Nepalese judiciary. The direct effect doctrine was also developed under
article 4 para 3 that states that member states are supposed to accept EU laws and all the
consequences that come in line with the laws. The article also grants the court the power to
rule for the inclusion of the EU laws in the national laws. A good example of such an
application occurs where members seek legal protection by the EU laws on taxation among
member states. In such a case the EU can rule for the refund of unlawful made taxes. In this
perspective, the EU laws overshadow the national laws that had imposed the undue tax and
sets up new tax standards. Member states are obliged with the responsibility of ensuring the
effectiveness, equivalence and legal significance of the EU laws.
The contribution of direct effects on the achievement of CJEU
The development of the direct effect measure has helped promote CJEU achievement in
various ways. Among the key ways include; the court achievement in developing European
7 Djordjevic, M. “The ECJ and judicial activism: The influence of the European court of justice
on the making of European Union.” Lund University, Department of Political Science. (2009), pp. 10
8 Nollkaemper, A. “The Duality Effect of International Law.” European journal of international
law, Vol. 25, Issue 1. (2014), pp. 106

7
legal order. The court has realized the achievement through the development of clear
principles on European laws and the development of loyal cooperation among its members.
The court has developed the terms of the legal order under article 6(3) TUE of its
constitution.9 The article includes democracy and human rights in its context. In addition, the
article develops a description of principles of liberty and the rule of law. The loyal
cooperation has facilitated the development of effect utile doctrine. The doctrine states that
EU rules should be developed by both national leaders and national courts to ensure their full
effects. The constitutional rules to be used are developed under article 4(3) TEU of the EU
constitution.
Conclusion
The court has consequently developed transparency in its ruling by ensuring that every
member of the EU is subject to the union laws. The transparency has promoted the
integration and coexistence between the members. Similarly, the development of a regulation
on corporate rules has ensured equal distribution of profits. The development of rules to
regulate the cooperate sector has also enhanced foreign investments in the member states by
regulating the restriction developed by individual countries on corporate matters. The aspect
has enhanced globalization and development. In addition, the court has realized its goals for
global human right development. The development has been made following the application
of the direct effect model. The model has enforced authorities and national courts to make
decisions with respect to the international rules that are aimed at promoting human rights.
Lastly, the development of supremacy of the court has played a great role in ensuring that the
court realizes its goals for transparency. The court develops its judgment according to EU
laws. As a result, the judgment made is free of influence by national laws. The supremacy has
also helped the court in the implementation of its various treaties among member countries.
9 Eckes, C. International law as the law of the EU: The role of the Court of Justice. Netherlands:
Cleer working paers, 2010, pp. 7

8
Bibliography
Bruges Group. “Falling to hold back the incoming tide: Why EU law has supremacy over
national law and why attempts to reform will never succeed. (2016).
Djordjevic, M. “The ECJ and judicial activism: The influence of the European court of justice
on the making of European Union.” Lund University, Department of Political Science.
(2009).
Eckes, C. International law as the law of the EU: The role of the Court of Justice.
Netherlands: (Cleer working paers, 2010).

9
Hongarth, R. “Brexit and European Court of Justice.” Institute for Government. (2017)
Morten, K. “European integration and the European court of justice. Can the European court
of justice be seen as a prointegrative institution?” The University of Copenhagen, department
of political science, (2009).
Nollkaemper, A. “The Duality Effect of International Law.” European journal of international
law, Vol. 25, Issue 1. (2014).
Werner, B. “Why is the Court of Justice of European Union accepted: Three mechanisms of
opposition abatement. Institute for intercultural and international studies. (2015).
Zang, S. “Supremacy of EU law: A comparative analysis.” The University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. 2014