Supremacy of EU law in administrative decisions
Supremacy of EU Law in Administrative Decisions
The supremacy of EU law means that when there is a conflict between European Union law and the national law of a member state, EU law prevails. This principle ensures uniform application and effectiveness of EU law across all member states.
In the context of administrative decisions—decisions made by public authorities or administrative bodies within member states—this supremacy means that:
National administrative authorities must apply EU law over conflicting national laws.
If an administrative decision conflicts with EU law, it can be challenged and set aside.
National courts reviewing administrative decisions must ensure these decisions comply with EU law.
This principle was developed and affirmed through key decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
Key Cases Illustrating Supremacy of EU Law in Administrative Decisions
1. Costa v ENEL (1964) – Case 6/64
Facts:
Mr. Costa, an Italian citizen, challenged the nationalization of the electricity company ENEL in Italy, arguing that it conflicted with EU law (then the EEC Treaty).
Holding:
The Court established the principle of the supremacy of EU law, stating that EU law cannot be overridden by domestic law. National law, including administrative rules, must give way to EU law if there is a conflict.
Significance for Administrative Decisions:
This case set the foundation: administrative authorities must apply EU law over conflicting national laws in their decisions.
2. Simmenthal II (1978) – Case 106/77
Facts:
An Italian company challenged a customs duty imposed by the Italian customs authority, which was incompatible with EU law.
Holding:
The Court held that national courts must not wait for national legislation to be set aside but must apply EU law directly. Administrative authorities and courts must disapply any national rule conflicting with EU law immediately.
Significance:
Administrative bodies must refuse to apply any conflicting national law and instead apply EU law directly. This reinforces immediate effect and supremacy in administrative decisions.
3. Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (1990) – Cases 249/87 and 250/87
Facts:
A Spanish fishing company challenged UK legislation that restricted access to British fishing waters, conflicting with EU law on freedom of establishment.
Holding:
The House of Lords suspended the application of the conflicting UK law pending a ruling by the CJEU. The CJEU confirmed that national courts must set aside any national legislation or administrative decision contrary to EU law.
Significance:
This case established that national courts (and by extension administrative bodies) can and must disapply conflicting national rules, including administrative decisions, to uphold EU law.
4. Ratti (1979) – Case 148/78
Facts:
An Italian company was fined for failing to comply with packaging and labeling requirements that were later found to be incompatible with an EU directive.
Holding:
The Court held that EU directives only have direct effect after the deadline for implementation has passed, but once that deadline is passed, national authorities cannot enforce national measures that conflict with the directive.
Significance:
This case clarified that administrative authorities must respect the direct effect of EU directives post-deadline and cannot enforce conflicting national rules.
5. Commission v Germany (Brokdorf) (1987) – Case C-123/85
Facts:
Germany adopted national rules regulating nuclear power plants that were stricter than EU rules, and the European Commission challenged them.
Holding:
The Court held that national measures, including administrative decisions based on national law, which undermine EU law must be set aside.
Significance:
This case reinforced that national administrative authorities cannot take decisions that undermine EU law’s objectives, emphasizing the supremacy in administrative practice.
Summary of the Principle in Administrative Context
Direct Effect and Supremacy: EU law provisions (treaties, regulations, directives post-implementation deadline) can be directly invoked before administrative bodies and courts.
Duty to Disapply Conflicting National Law: Administrative authorities must disregard national laws that conflict with EU law.
Uniform Application: Supremacy ensures uniform interpretation and application of EU law across all member states.
National Courts’ Role: Courts review administrative decisions to ensure compliance with EU law and can set aside those that conflict with it.
RELATED Blog
0 comments