On 31 January 2020 at 23:00 GMT (00:00 CET in Brussels), the United Kingdom became the first member state to officially leave the European Union after 47 years of membership. This happened under the terms of the Brexit withdrawal agreement. At the same time, the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972), the law that introduced EU law (Community law as amended in 1972) into UK domestic law, was repealed by the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018, although the effects of the 1972 Act were preserved by the provisions of the European Union Act 2020 (Agreement of withdrawal) so that Union law can continue to produce legal effects within the EU. United Kingdom until the end of the transposition period ending on 31 December 2020. As the transposition deadline has expired, EU law no longer applies to the UK. However, the principle of the primacy of EU law applies to the interpretation of EU law that has been maintained. [26] In Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (Case 26/62), the Court of Justice stated that laws adopted by the EU institutions must be incorporated into the legal systems of EU countries, which are obliged to comply with them. EU law therefore takes precedence over national law. Like many other countries with a civil legal tradition, the French judicial system is divided into ordinary courts and administrative courts. The ordinary courts accepted the primacy of EU law in 1975, but the administrative courts did not accept this doctrine until 1990. The highest administrative court, the Council of State, had ruled that, since the administrative courts were not competent to review the legislation adopted by the French Parliament, they could not find the incompatibility of national legislation with Union law or give it authority of primacy over contrary national legislation.
This contrasted with the ordinary supreme court, the Court of Cassation; in the case Administration des Douanes/Société “Cafés Jacques Vabre” and SARL Wiegel et Cie[15], it held that EU law should prevail over national law, in accordance with the requirements of Article 55 of the French Constitution, which gives primacy to the ratified international treaty over national law. The administrative courts finally changed their position in the Raoul Georges Nicolo case[16] by deciding to follow the reasoning of the Court of Cassation. Opinion of the Council`s Legal Service of 22 June 2007 It follows from the case-law of the Court that the primacy of EU law is a cornerstone of EU law. In the Court`s view, this principle is inherent in the specific nature of the European Community. At the time of the first judgment of settled case-law (Costa v ENEL, 15 July 1964, Case 6/641 (1)), priority was not mentioned in the Treaty. This is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future Treaty does not alter the existence of this principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice. 17. Declaration of primacy The Conference recalls that, according to settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties take precedence over the law of the Member States under the conditions laid down by that case-law. The Conference also decided to annex to this Final Act the opinion of the Council`s Legal Service on the primacy of Community law, as amended by document 11197/07 (JUR 260): It follows from all these observations that the law deriving from the Treaty, an autonomous source of law, by reason of its specific and original character by national legislation, whatever its wording, without depriving Community law of its character and without calling into question the legal basis of the Community itself. [10] In these cases, the Court clarified that the primacy of EU law applies to all national acts, whether adopted before or after the EU act concerned. Since Union law will take precedence over national law, the principle of primacy therefore aims to ensure that citizens are uniformly protected by Union law in all areas of the EU.
Article I-6 of the European Constitution provides that `[t]he Constitution and the laws adopted by the institutions of the Union in the exercise of the powers conferred on them shall prevail over the laws of the Member States`. The draft constitution was never ratified after being rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005. Its successor, the Treaty of Lisbon, did not contain the article on primacy, but the following statement: The primacy of European Union law (sometimes called primacy or primacy of European law[1]) is a legal principle that establishes the primacy of Union law over conflicting national laws of EU Member States. This principle stems from an interpretation by the European Court of Justice, which has ruled that European law takes precedence over any breach of national law, including the constitution of a Member State itself. [2] [3] [4] The majority of national courts have generally recognised and accepted this principle, with the exception of the part where EU law takes precedence over the constitution of a Member State. Consequently, national constitutional courts have also reserved the right to review the compatibility of EU law with national constitutional law. [5] The Court of Justice established the primacy of the principle of EU law in an important judgment of 1964 (Costa v. Enel) and extended it in 1970 in the judgment of the Société commerciale internationale. Since then, the Member States have tacitly recognised this, even though primacy is not provided for in the Treaties. However, Declaration No 17 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon recalls that `according to settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis thereof take precedence over the law of the Member States under the conditions laid down by that case-law`. This primacy applies in cases where the EU is competent by virtue of the principle of conferral of competences. The principle of primacy (also known as `primacy`) of EU law is based on the idea that in the event of a conflict between an aspect of EU law and a legal aspect in an EU country (national law), EU law prevails.
Otherwise, EU countries could simply prioritise their national legislation over EU primary or secondary legislation, and the continuation of EU policies would be impracticable. On 7th October the Polish Constitutional Court handed down a judgment calling into question the primacy of EU law. This sent shockwaves across Europe. The EU prides itself on being rules-based, and the existence of an independent court that has the final say on the interpretation of EU law has been one of its main features since its inception. Direct effect is the ability of a provision of EU law to be applied in national judicial proceedings, while primacy refers to the ability of that rule to prevail over conflicting rules of national law in national judicial proceedings. The two principles are closely linked and characteristic of the EU legal order. In the spirit of the volume, this chapter examines the evolution of the case-law of the European Court of Justice on both principles, paying particular attention to the circumstances in which the Court “invented” the doctrines of direct effect and primacy almost sixty years ago. The chapter draws attention to some less explored aspects of the development of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and examines the generally friendly but sometimes chilly reception of this case-law by its addressees, the national courts of the Member States. In 2016, the Belgian Constitutional Court ruled that the primacy of EU law over the Belgian Constitution was limited. Following the case law of the German Constitutional Court on the reservation of identity, it ruled that the core of Belgian constitutional identity cannot be overshadowed by EU law. [13] The principle of the primacy of Union law has evolved over time through the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.