Facts
Flaminio Costa was a Milanese lawyer as well as a user and shareholder of Edisonvolta, a municipal electricity company nationalized by the Italian government in the context of the nationalization of the electricity sector at the end of 1962. Costa was assisted by Gian Galeazzo Stendardi, a Milanese lawyer, who wrote some pioneering works on Italian Constitutional Justice and the relationship between Community Law and Italian Law. Costa and Stendardi opposed electricity nationalization for political reasons. [2]
When Costa received his first electricity bill from ENEL, the monopolist established by the electricity nationalization law, he refused to pay it, claiming that ENEL had not validly taken over his electricity supply contract with Edisonvolta, because the nationalisation law infringed both the Italian Constitution and the EEC Treaty.
In the ensuing lawsuit before the Justice of Peace of Milan (giudice conciliatore), Costa asked that court to refer the case to the Italian Constitutional Court and to the European Court of Justice. However, the Justice of Peace hearing his case, Antonio Carones, only referred the matter to the Italian Constitutional Court.
The Italian Constitutional Court gave its judgement on 24 February 1964, ruling that while Article 11 of the Italian Constitution enabled the Parliament to adopt laws entailing limitations of sovereignty necessary to join international organizations such as the EEC, those laws did not enjoy a special rank in the hierarchy of legal sources. [3] Therefore, the ordinary rule of statutory interpretation, granting precedence to the subsequent law ( lex posterior derogat legi anteriori/priori ), would apply in case of conflict. As a result, the Treaty of Rome, which was incorporated into Italian law in 1957, could not prevail over the electricity nationalisation law enacted in 1962. [4]
In the meantime, Costa had challenged the second electricity bill he had received from ENEL before another Justice of Peace of Milan, Vittorio Emanuele Fabbri. The latter referred the case to the Italian Constitutional Court again and, for the first time, to the European Court of Justice, asking the latter whether the nationalisation law was consistent with the provisions of the EEC Treaty on commercial monopolies, the right of establishment, competition, and state aids.
Relying on the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court, the Italian government argued that the preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice was inadmissible, as the giudice conciliatore had to apply the nationalisation statute even if it conflicted with the EEC Treaty, thus obviating the need for a ruling by the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of that Treaty.
Judgment
The ECJ dismissed the inadmissibility plea, noting that even though it could not rule on the consistency between Italian law and Community law, it could assist the referring court in doing so, by providing the following authoritative interpretation of the four provisions of the EEC Treaty mentioned in the order for reference: [5]
As opposed to ordinary international treaties, the Treaty instituting the E.E.C. has created its own order, which was integrated with the national order of the member-States the moment the Treaty came into force; as such it is binding upon them. In fact, by creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality and its own capacity in law, apart from having international standing and more particularly, real powers resulting from a limitation of competence or a transfer of powers from the States to the Community, the member-States, albeit within limited spheres, have restricted their sovereign rights and created a body of law applicable both to their nationals and to themselves. The reception, within the laws of each member-State, of provisions having a Community source, and more particularly of the terms and of the spirit of the Treaty, has as a corollary the impossibility, for the member-State, to give preference to a unilateral and subsequent measure against a legal order accepted by them on a basis of reciprocity.
[...]
It follows from all these observations that the law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called into question. [6]
On the merits, the ECJ found that the provisions of the EEC Treaty on competition and State aids mentioned in the order for reference had no direct effect and thus could not be invoked by individuals wishing to challenge national laws that allegedly infringed those provisions. The ECJ interpreted the right of establishment rather narrowly, thus suggesting that the nationalisation law was consistent with it as long as it did not entail discrimination on the basis of nationality. The ECJ instead left to the referring court to establish whether the nationalisation law was consistent with the provision of the EEC Treaty on commercial monopolies.
Significance
This groundbreaking case established the principle of supremacy in EU law, which is an independent source of law that cannot be overridden by domestic laws. [1]
Article I-6 of the proposed European Constitution stated: "The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States". The constitution was never ratified, after being rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.
The Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 did not include the article on primacy, but instead included a Declaration concerning primacy recalling the Costa v. ENEL judgment.
French Judge Robert Lecourt, who was on the Court from 1962 to 1976, would later argue these decisions "added nothing" other than to "give effect" to the treaties, an effect he felt was "commanded" by their being. [7]
The European Communities Act 1972, also known as the ECA 1972, was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which made legal provision for the accession of the United Kingdom as a member state to the three European Communities (EC) – the European Economic Community, European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), and the European Coal and Steel Community ; the EEC and ECSC subsequently became the European Union.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ), formally just the Court of Justice, is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its uniform application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) enshrines certain political, social, and economic rights for European Union (EU) citizens and residents into EU law. It was drafted by the European Convention and solemnly proclaimed on 7 December 2000 by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. However, its then legal status was uncertain and it did not have full legal effect until the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009.
In European Union law, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.
The Third Amendment of the Constitution Act 1972 is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland that permitted the State to join the European Communities, which would later become the European Union, and provided that European Community law would take precedence over the constitution. It was approved by referendum on 10 May 1972, and signed into law by the President of Ireland Éamon de Valera on 8 June of the same year.
R v Secretary of State for Transport was a judicial review case taken against the United Kingdom government by a company of Spanish fishermen who claimed that the United Kingdom had breached European Union law by requiring ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the UK. The case produced a number of significant judgements on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law.
Gaspare Ambrosini was an Italian jurist and statesman.
Thoburn v Sunderland City Council is a UK constitutional and administrative law case, concerning the interaction of EU law and an Act of Parliament. It is important for its recognition of the supremacy of EU law and the basis for that recognition. Though the earlier Factortame had also referred to Parliament's voluntary acceptance of the supremacy of EU law, Thoburn put less stress on the jurisprudence of the ECJ and more on the domestic acceptance of such supremacy; Lord Justice Laws suggested there was a hierarchy of "constitutional statutes" that Parliament could only expressly repeal, and so were immune from implied repeal.
Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) Case 26/62 was a landmark case of the European Court of Justice which established that provisions of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community were capable of creating legal rights which could be enforced by both natural and legal persons before the courts of the Community's member states. This is now called the principle of direct effect. The case is acknowledged as being one of the most important, and possibly the most famous development of European Union law.
Francovich v Italy (1991) C-6/90 was a decision of the European Court of Justice which established that European Union Member States could be liable to pay compensation to individuals who suffered a loss by reason of the Member State's failure to transpose an EU directive into national law. This principle is sometimes known as the principle of state liability or "the rule in Francovich" in European Union law.
The primacy of European Union law is a legal principle establishing precedence of European Union law over conflicting national laws of EU member states.
Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA (1990) C-106/89 was a decision of the European Court of Justice concerning the indirect effect of European Community law, now European Union law. It established that the courts of European Union member states have a duty to interpret national legislation in the light of unimplemented European Union directives.
Robert Lecourt was a French politician and lawyer, judge and the fourth President of the European Court of Justice. He was born in Pavilly and died in Boulogne-Billancourt.
Van Duyn v Home Office (1974) C-41/74 was a case of the European Court of Justice concerning the free movement of workers between member states.
A preliminary ruling is a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the interpretation of European Union law that is given in response to a request from a court or a tribunal of a member state. A preliminary ruling is a final determination of European Union law, with no scope for appeal. The ECJ hands down its decision to the referring court, which is then obliged to implement the ruling.
Meca Medina and Majcen v Commission (2006) C-519/04 P was a landmark judgement in the European Court of Justice that established primacy of EU law over sports federations. The ruling concerned David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen, long distance swimmers from Spain and Slovenia and their failed drugs test. The case was wide-reaching and important because it established the scope and nature that individual laws by sporting regulators, league operators and individual associations in Europe could impose their own rules and if they were in direct conflict with EU treaties, acquis or judgements by the European Courts of Justice.
Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission (2008) C-402/05 is a case concerning the hierarchy between international law and the general principles of EU law. It is also known as Kadi I to distinguish from a later related case, Kadi II (2013).
Amministrazione delle Finanze v Simmenthal SpA (1978) Case 106/77 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.
Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl (1994) C-91/92 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.
This page is based on this
Wikipedia article Text is available under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
