THE SPECIFICITY OF EUROPEAN UNION’S LEGAL SYSTEM – ASPECTS RELATED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF PRIMACY AND DIRECT EFFECT

Authors

  • Uros Cemalovic
  • Ana Vukadinovic

Keywords:

European Union law, the principle of primacy, the principle of direct effect, directive, Court of Justice of the European Union (European Court of Justice).

Abstract

The main mechanism for the creation of the norms of international law is the development of multilateral treaties, respecting the fundamental principle known as “pactasuntservanda”. There is no dispute that the European Union (EU) law has its origins in international public law. However, even if the EU acts and institutions invariably proclaim the establishment of the internal market – an area of free movement of persons, goods, services and capital – and notwithstanding the gradual strengthening of the elements that demonstrate political and not just economic integration between the Member States, the EU is, strictly speaking, a sui generis international organization. Consequently, EU as organization and its legal system have numerous important specificities. The objective of this paper is to analyse two of those specificities that may be considered as fundamental: its aptitude to prime over the national legal norms of the Member States (Chapter 1 – the principle of primacy) and its general ability to produce a direct effect for physical and legal persons in Member States’ domestic legal systems (Chapter 2 – the principle of direct effect).

References

References
1. Bankowski, Z. & Mac Lean, J. (2007). The Universal and the
Particular in Legal Reasoning, Edinburgh: The Edinburgh Centre for
Law and Society.
2. Blumann, C. & Dubouis, L. (2008). Droit institutionnel de
l’Unioneuropéenne, 3èmeédition, Paris: Litec.
3. Eckert, G., Gautier, Y., Kovar, R., & Ritleng, D. (eds.) (2007).
Incidence du droit communautaire sur le droit public français,
Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg.
4. Isaac, G. & Blanquet, M. (2001). Droit communautairegénéral,
8èmeédition, Paris: Armand Colin.
5. Michel,V. (2003). Recherches sur les compétences de la
Communautéeuropéenne, Paris: L’Harmattan.
6. Pescatore, P. (1972). Le droit de l’intégration, Emergence d’un
phénomène nouveau dans les relations
internationalesselonl’expérience des Communautéseuropéennes,
Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff.
7. Rideau, J. (2006). Droit institutionnel de l’Unionet des
Communautéseuropéennes, 5èmeédition, Paris: LGDJ.
8. Schermers, H. & Waelbroeck, D. (2001). Judicial Protection in the
European Union, sixth edition, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
9. Simon, D. (1998). Le systèmejuridiquecommunautaire, 2èmeédition,
Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
10. Van Hoecke, M. & Ost, F. (2000). The Harmonisation of the European
Private Law, Oregon: Hart Publishing.
Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities/European Union (ECJ)
ECJ, judgment Flaminio Costa v. ENEL of July 15, 1964 (case 6/64).
ECJ, judgment Internationale Handelsgesellschaft GmbH v. Einfuhr-und
fürVorratsstelleGetreide und Futtermittel of December 17, 1970 (case 11-
70).
ECJ, judgment European Communities v. Italian Republic of July 13, 1972
(case 48-71).
ECJ, judgmentSchlüter of October 24, 1973 (case 9/73).
ECJ, judgment Commission v. French Republic of April 4, 1974 (case 167/73).
ECJ, judgment ZentralfinanzeG and ReweRewe-Zentral AG v. Landwirtschaftskammerfür das Saarland of December 16, 1976 (case 33/76).
ECJ, judgment Iannelli&VolpiSpA v. Ditta Paolo Meroni of March 22, 1977 (case 74/76).
ECJ, judgment Finance Administration of the State v. Simmental of March 9, 1978 (case 106/77).
ECJ, judgment Ursula Becker of January 19, 1982 (case 8/81).
ECJ, judgment Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann of April 10, 1984 (case 14/83).
ECJ, judgment GimenezZaera of September 29, 1987 (case 126/86).
ECJ, judgment Bianco and Girard of February 25, 1988 (cases 331-376 and 378/85).
ECJ, judgment Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v. Italian Republic of November 19, 1991 (cases C-6/90 and C-9/90).
ECJ, opinion of December 14, 1991 (1/91).
ECJ, judgment Paola Faccini Dori of July 14, 1994 (case C-91/92).
ECJ, judgment Brasserie du pêcheur SA v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen against Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and Others of March 5, 1996 (cases C-46/93 and C-48/93).
ECJ, judgment Klaus Konle v. Republik Österreich of June 1, 1999 (case C-302/97).
ECJ, judgment Salomone Haim v. Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein of July 4, 2000 (case C-424/97).
ECJ, judgment Gerhard Köbler v. Republik Österreich of September 30, 2003 (case C-224/01).
ECJ, judgment Monte ArcosuSrl of January 11, 2001 (case C-403/98).

Downloads

Published

2018-11-15