Supremacy and Direct Effects Contributions 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 Union[1]. 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 occurred following contradiction of the bodies’ law and those of a member country, the member country laws becomes inapplicable[2]. 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 laws[3]. 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 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 investment[6].  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 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 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.

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).

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

[1]          Hongarth, R. “Brexit and European Court of Justice.” Institute for Government. (2017), pp. 6

[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]                      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

[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

[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