Supremacy of EU Law (1300words)
Introduction
The legal framework of the EU has long been realized as eminent within the international law
spectrum, predominantly due to its supremacy over the national laws of the member-states.
This principle has been confirmed by judicial decisions of the a number of times, though it is
not expressly contained in the treaties of the European Communities. This essay will seek to
look into the development of this doctrine and its implications, as well as judicial
interpretations that have done much in shaping the existing understanding of EU law primacy.
Historical Development and Foundational Cases
The doctrine of the supremacy of EU law had first been enunciated during the landmark case
of Van Gend en Loos in 1963. The ECJ first elaborated that, in essence, the European
Community creates a "new legal order," different from the classical international law. This was
the brilliant concept that, with its formation, the community's member states effectively
clipped independent sovereign rights to a higher legal authority: one whose laws would take
precedence over national legislation. This was the case that marked a turning point in the
laying down of a foundation for the future development of a supranational legal system in
which EU law would prevail over conflicting national laws. Further to that, the doctrine has
been strengthened ever since when, in 1964, the ECJ found in the case of Costa v ENEL, ruling
beyond any reasonable doubt that EU law was supreme over any conflicting national
legislation. This decision has brought to the fore a sovereign nature, which had been ceded
irrevocably to the European Community and stated to be beyond the unilateral retraction of
members. Internationale Handelsgesellschaft reinforced the supremacy of EU law by stating
that EU law takes precedence even over the basic principles of national constitutional law. The
decision of the court drew attention to the binding force in all member states of the EU laws
for a uniform application and interpretation of the EU law.
The Doctrine of Direct Effect and Its Consequences
In fact, it was the Simmenthal case in 1978 which further clarified the principle of direct effect.
It was held that national courts are actually required to enforce EU law directly; it takes
precedence over any conflicting national legislation, no matter the date of its enactment. On
the contrary, the doctrine held that national law in conflict with EU law ought to be not only
set aside but should, in fact, occur instantaneously after such a conflict had been identified,
without waiting for the amendment or the repeal of national law. The case Defrenne v Sabena
emphasized the direct effect of EU directives, asserting that the prohibition against
discrimination between men and women applies not only to the public sector but also to
private employers, demonstrating the extensive reach of EU law into national employment
practices. Along with the doctrine of EU law supremacy, this doctrine of direct effect had a
great effect on the judicial practice within member states, ensuring that EU directives and
regulations have immediate force as a matter of law and practical effect within all member
states. This has further shifted substantial responsibility onto national courts to interpret and
apply EU law in such a manner that might, to some extent and at times, challenge national
legal traditions and practices. Together, these defining cases and principles not only
underscore the strength and reach of EU law but also are reflective of the ongoing dynamism
between national sovereignty and the authority of supranational laws.
