European Union Law, the Doctrine of Supremacy - Essay Example

?European Union Law Introduction Supremacy of the European Union law is a legal concept unanimously adopted by all member s of the economic and political body. The concept provides that European union laws must be superior to any local law in the respective member states thus in case the laws of the respective member states conflict with those of the European union, the laws of the countries are ignored. The European Union brings together several countries within Europe thus developing a common market necessitated by the use of a single currency. As an economic body, the European Union unifies the European market thus permitting goods and services to flow freely by permitting investors from member states to invest in any country. Such provisions thus create room for conflicts of interests thus prompting the creation of specific laws to govern the interaction between the member states (Weiler)1. European Union The European Union functions through several super national institutions formed through consensus and participation of the member states. Such institutions include the European commission, the European council, the European parliament, the European central bank and the court of justice of the European Union. Chalmers et al. stated that these institutions coordinate the operations of the body with the view of safeguarding the interests if each member state thus creating a unified platform for political and economic development. Created after the end of the Second World War, which typified the differences among the countries in Europe, the body sought to bring all the nations together by addressing their common interest amicably thus safeguarding the continent and the entire world from such unwarranted aggression2. However, such an agreement to unify several sovereign states was likely to present administrative challenges, as the countries would have to change their constitution among other supreme laws to integrate the dictates of the European Union3. The union has three types of courts that includes the general court, which addresses issues presented by citizens from the member states, the court of justice, which addresses cases presented by the member states and the institutions in the countries and finally the European Union civil service tribunal. The three help interpret and apply the laws and treaties of the European Union within the member states. (Greenwood & Richard)4. The doctrine of supremacy Supremacy is therefore a fundamental legal and administrative provision, which commands compliance from all the member states. Bomberg and Peterson wrote that in most cases, the member states would infuse the European Union laws into their constitutions and laws thus eliminating the previously conflicting legal provisions in the country5. This way, the administration of justice becomes easier especially when the conflict includes citizens from different countries. However, membership into European Union is voluntary. Most of the member states joined owing to the viable economic opportunities a common market would present. This implies that the inclusion of the European laws into the existing local laws is equally voluntary. By the virtue of registration into the international body, the doctrines of supremacy begin to apply thus demanding compliance with the existing European Union laws (Walsh)6. According to Glendon the European Union has a detailed constitution developed from the numerous treaties that resulted in the creation of the body. Additionally, the European Union has an effective legal system comprising of both the courts and the laws to enforce the implementation of the agreements7. Besides the two, the union further has the capacity to implement its legislations throughout the member states. The European Union law versus Member’s States Laws In the first case of its kind, the Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlands case that was decided in 1963 at the Netherlands Supreme Court in regards to the direct effect of the EU treaty provisions and the extent to which individuals can rely on such terms to challenge the strength of the national law. In this case the European Court of Justice stated that “the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only Member States but also their nationals”. Therefore, this case law made the EU law superior to the national laws of Netherlands8. All the countries currently in the union had existing legislations prior to their involvement in the union. Most of such laws regulated their social structures and helped create their governance systems. The laws thus differed depending on the nature of the societies. Typifying the difference in the legal structure of the countries is the United Kingdom commonly known as England. Unlike any other country in the region, the country has no written constitution. According to Herring, its constitution is an integration of several treaties and precedence set by the judicial service. Such a country thus attaches immense importance to its history and historical occurrences since her future societies rely on such. The courts in the United Kingdom rely on case laws and precedence, which refers to the reference of past cases of which courts in the country tackle cases in reference to the previous court actions9. Courts in the United Kingdom are therefore bound to their decisions in past similar cases (Jonathan)10. The high court and the court of appeal in the country must abide by the precedence set in past cases thus creating a just society with a unified legal system. Alexander and Goran wrote that the English case portrays the precarious nature the creation of the European Union and the unification of the region’s legal system presented to the different member states11. As stated in the question, the doctrine of supremacy relies on the inclusion of the European Union laws into the countries constitutions. Plucknett cited that a country like the United Kingdom, which has no written constitution, must therefore equally find a way of infusing the European Union legislations into their existing national laws. Such would require the member states to ratify their legislations in order to enable the application of the European Union laws and the creation of such fundamental institutions as the union’s courts within the existing legal system12. The success of the union in achieving its set objectives relies on the creation of such fundamental institutions and the application of the laws within the regions. However, just as explained earlier, registration into the union is voluntary. Such an empirical feature of the structure of the union and fact that registration into the union would present numerous legislative changes within the countries local structures, some of the members have exhibited reluctance in accepting the union’s mandate in their countries a trend that stifles the seamless operation of the union with the expansive European continent (Jean and Keith)13. Among the values that form the union are human dignity, equality and the rule of law. The three compel the union to accord the member states the desired freedom owing to their sovereignty (Corbett et al)14. The union presents several positive attributes to the members thus attracting all the countries within the continent. In maintaining a rule of law, the union seeks to unify the differing laws within the continent by providing general solutions to the problems presented by the increased integration arising from the unification of the region. To achieve this, the union would find a mechanism of harmonizing the different legal systems exhibited by the member states thus creating a single legal jurisdiction. The doctrine of supremacy would therefore provide the countries with an effective mechanism to address their legal differences. According to the doctrine, the respective member states would retain their different legal systems including their laws and apply such in cases involving the locals. However, when the cases involved people from different countries within the union, it becomes prudent for the court handing the case to apply legislations that are equal and promise fairness to both parties (Horspool and Humpreys)15. The most effective legislation capable of providing two parties from different nationality fairness and justice without the infiltration of local interest thus becomes those governing the creation of the European Union. Additionally, the doctrine does not demand a blanket application of its laws. Since the laws are contribution of the member states, there is a high likelihood of the laws resembling those in the countries. In recognizing such a possibility, the doctrine thus provides that the European Union laws become applicable only when they conflict with the laws in the respective member states. This implies that the European Union laws are superior to any other legislation within the region and applicable to the member states. Failure to implement the supremacy of the European Union laws would present several challenges that definitely impair the functionality of the entire union thus stifling the peaceful coexistence of the several countries that currently share a common market and a common currency. To portray the importance of the union and her compliance to the legislations of the union, the United Kingdom for example created the supreme court of the United Kingdom. The entire legal system of the United Kingdom operates as dictated by the case laws, which draw their structure and provision from past precedence (Rifkin)16. The supreme court of the United Kingdom on the other hand is capable of making unique decisions that without complying with the dictates of the case laws and the past precedence among others. Through the Supreme Court, the country therefore ratifies her legal system to accommodate the provisions of the European Union. Implications of member states’ reluctance to incorporate the doctrine of supremacy Reluctance to incorporate the doctrine of supremacy is itself a violation of abiding community law since the case law established in the case of Costa versus ENEL (1964) established that it was a violation of the law for nationalizing the production and distribution of electricity. In the ruling of this case, the EU Court of Justice stated that “It is impossible for the states to set up a subsequent unilateral measure against a legal order which they have accepted on a reciprocal basis.” Moreover, the court stated that “The transfer by the states from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights against which a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail17”. Failure to comply with the union’s legislations presents several challenges to the freedom of movement and interaction within the member countries. Key among such is the fact that failure of compliance creates a diplomatic row among countries. Wallace and Cliff argued that by employing a local legislation in a case that required effective consideration of the facts and the application of the conflicting European Union law, the country portrays unimaginable respect to the union and bias to the citizen from different state. Governments always promise to protect the dignity of their citizens. Every government will therefore make legislations that foster the development of her people and create a conducive society for their existence18. The governments also understand that their citizens move around in search of viable business opportunities. To safeguard the interest of their people even in she new boundaries, governments set up embassies. The creation of single territory within the member countries eases the relationship among the countries thus creating a conducive environment for business and mutual growth. By disregarding the provisions and failing to apply the supremacy of the European Union laws, a member country creates aggression against another thus developing a feud owing to the subjective and biased application of laws since such laws would only benefit the respective country (McCormick)19. Sinclair lamented that such a scenario creates a diplomatic row, as the aggrieved countries would cut ties and responsive relations with the aggrieving country. The possible results of such actions would be the application of stricter travel rules with the view of discouraging integration of the countries20. Additionally, Samaha stated that such laws would affect even the innocent member states a feature that will definitely pose a threat to the stability and longevity of the entire union21. However, the union has disciplinary actions to member countries in a bid to instil discipline and compliance with the legal provisions of the union. According to Damian et al. the council of the European Union, an institution in the union monitors the actions of the member states and their compliance with the legislations of the union thus netting out effective disciplinary actions to such member states in order to ensure the compliance of the states with the union’s legislation. It thus becomes imperative that the countries observe the dictates of the union22. Conclusion The European Union is a platform in which the member states meets and discuss development issues affecting both their nations individually and the entire region. The union has adequate financial might and therefore influences the economy of the region. It provides such fundamental financial services as credit to the member countries thus sponsoring development programs throughout the region (Jean and Keith)23. The economic implications of the union bear great influence on the nature of the relationship that the countries develop with the union and acceptance of its legislations most of which regulate the economy. So far, the countries have effectively implemented the supremacy rule thus creating the peace and unity enjoyed in the region. According to Marjorie Among such instances in which the countries respected the supremacy of the European Union laws, include Frontini v. Ministero delle Finanze [1974], in Italy. In the case, the applicant required a court to disregard an Italian law without necessarily waiting for the highest court in the land, the Italian constitutional court to do so24. The ECJ thus directed that every nation must implement the union’s legislations as stipulated without derailing the process. By decreeing so, the applicant obtains instantaneous justice as the Italian court disregarded her constitution to permit the implementation of the European Union’s legislation as provided by the supremacy doctrine. As discussed earlier, the United Kingdom is among the countries that have suffered great interference by the European legislations. The country has no definite constitution with its justice system relying entirely on case laws25. However, the country being the greatest economy in the region has great influence on other member states thus compelling the seamless infusion of the union’s legislations and the ratification of the country’s constitution thus creating platforms that sustain the addition of the new legislations. Piris noted that n 1990, the house of lords accepted the application supremacy of the European union laws in a case which threatened the sovereignty of the case. However, the case was unique since there was no precedence yet the European union’s provision appeared reasonable and was established by jurisprudence in the parliament26. The United Kingdom has been one of the countries that vouch for the application of the European Union laws to their entirety. In retrospect, the member states in the European Union have accepted the application of the supremacy doctrine. They therefore permit the union’s law to apply in case they conflict with the existing local legislations, a case that portrays outright discredit to the sovereignty of the sates and their state institutions. The union seeks to safeguard the interest of every member state by a developing secure and effective platform to monitor the economic and political activities of the states thus safeguarding the peace in the region. while registration and compliance with such may appear voluntary, the countries have a moral obligation to adhere to the legislations in order to prevent any form of conflict interests and double standards which do not only threaten the longevity of the union but also the peace in the region. Read More