Supremacy + Direct Effect (1264words)
Introduction
The superordinate authority in relation to the individual legal systems of its member states
defines a rather unique system of the EU legal system. This relation is based on two doctrines
that were originated in the CJEU the principle of supremacy and the principle of direct effect.
These doctrines serve to support the supranational character of EU law and regard any
contradictory laws at the national level.
Supremacy Doctrine
The supremacy doctrine, which according to them, the primacy in doctrines and principles
developed by the EU (CJEU) Court of Justice is firmly rooted. Striking affirmation of this
doctrine had already been seen, through the landmark case Costa v ENEL, which held that
laws of the European Community were to prevail over national laws if conflict was found to be
present. This is an absolutely necessary legal doctrine that EU law would uniformly be applied
across member states to sustain the legal integrity and unitary nature of the EU. The principle
of supremacy was further entrenched by the Simmenthal SpA ruling. In this landmark
judgment, the CJEU ruled that national courts are under an obligation to give full effect to EU
law by disapplying any conflicting national legislation, however high the standing, or whatever
its nature or status in the domestic hierarchy may be. This essentially says again the fact that
EU law is not a single layer of law but the leading legal order that has to be incorporated
directly and unconditionally by the member states, covering even issues that could possibly be
in contradiction to constitutional provisions. Thus, this doctrine of direct effect is serving as a
supplement to the principle of supremacy of EU law, whereby the EU law is binding not only on
member states but also on individuals to confer rights and liabilities upon them. The Van Gend
en Loos decision virtually assured that direct effect would be the cornerstone of the individual
operationalization of EU law.
Introduction and Impact of the Direct Effect Doctrine
It is this doctrine that enables individuals to rely on EU law at home both in litigations against
their governments with regard to EU obligations (vertical direct effect) or even against other
individuals (horizontal direct effect). The direct effect has seen nuanced applications in
landmark cases. To give an example, horizontal direct effect of treaty provisions was
recognized in the Defrenne v Sabeena case, thereby authorizing the assertion of EU rights in
disputes between individuals. In the Marshall case, quite precise boundaries of the direct
effect were given, referring to directives that are not entirely implemented. A difference was
drawn between those directives which, though not giving rights to individuals, could not
impose on them the corresponding obligations (horizontal direct effect), and could be
enforced against state entities (vertical direct effect). The differences have essentially mapped
out the boundaries of how EU law applies to the different areas, CJEU case law will tell them
what EU law might do to their legal relations with other people and state agents. It includes
"an axis of legal navigation within the complex architecture of the EU." As such, therefore, it
has significantly served to fortify the legal system of the Union in that it helps clarify how EU
law applies to grant predictability and stability. The doctrines are not only declaratory of the
hierarchical superiority of EU law but also invest the citizens with actionable rights to see EU
law as not something on paper but it leaps and breathes and forms the backdrop of everyday
legal landscapes.
