Critical Evaluation of the Jurisdiction of the ECJ and National Courts - Essay Example

Critically Evaluate the Above ment, Referring To the Case Law of the Court Of Justice of the European Union, That of the National Courts In the UK, And Two Other Member States Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Critical Evaluation of the Jurisdiction of the ECJ and National Courts 4 Conclusion 7 References 8 Introduction The European constitution and the national court of justice endure different forms of jurisdiction for a particular case. In accordance with the preliminary ruling system, it states the fundamental mechanism related to the European Union law. In this regard, this preliminary ruling system essentially aims at allowing the national courts to ensure the uniform application along with interpretation of the similar law within the member States. The initial ruling measures were based upon the cooperation of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the national courts with a view to ensure effective cooperation and proper flow of relevant information1. The central issue circles around the interpersonal relationship between the European Court of Justice and the national courts related to supremacy claim over the national law that is embedded in the ECJ’s jurisdiction. At the base level, clashes between the community laws along with the national law are readily apparent. It has also been observed that according to the ECJ, it has decided that the law associated with the European Community (EC) must be supreme related to any kind of conflict that might arise in the decisions of the community and the national courts. On the basis of the new regulations, it has been observed that the principle of ECJ’s supremacy over the rulings of the national courts has been well recognised in the case of Costa v. ENEL among others2. This study intends to discuss the relevant gaps between the decisions of the European Court of Justice and the national courts. The presented views include the internal authority of the EU law that essentially places the national constitutions and the EU legal order on a collision course. Critical Evaluation of the Jurisdiction of the ECJ and National Courts ECJ had been established in the year 1952 with a view to mitigate the three roles that are associated with the member states that frame the part of the European Community (EC). One of the three major roles includes laying a constant check upon the EC’s legislative and the executive bodies. Another key role depicts clarifying along with interpreting the indefinite EC’s law. The last vital role entails the implementation of non-compliance of the EC jurisdiction by the member States3. The development of the jurisdiction under the ‘European Legal System’ has enabled to enlighten certain flaws associated with the system. It has been observed that the member States have apparently supported the ‘European Legal System’. Member States have readily passed on the authority to the ECJ for carrying out the judicial function, which the State cannot pass. Nonetheless, the main gap remains in the rulings of the ECJ that contradict the interest of the member States. In fact, in numerous rulings of the ECJ, it has been observed that it usually challenges the national interest. This can be made further evident by depicting examples of certain cases4. According to the Cassis de Dijon case (Case 120/78)5, the primary rulings of German regulation state the blocking of French liqueur sales as it failed to mitigate the general regulations of Germany associated with the alcoholic beverages. However, according to the judgement of the ECJ, it stated that the German government’s restrictions on the French liqueur sales are rather contributing towards an illegal trade barrier. According to the judgement of the ECJ, under ‘mutual recognition’, it is considered that when a product is produced lawfully and is sold within one of the member States, it is likely to be accepted by other member States as well. Herein, the judgement of the ECJ readily contradicts the national interest. Another example i.e. the Kramer case (Case 3/76)6 mainly concerns the establishment of structural policy within the Netherlands’ fishing industry. In this case, it has been observed that the jurisdiction of the European Community (EC) related to a precise section of competence has taken the power of the national authorities to decide autonomously. Correspondingly, R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport case7 reveals a host of cases litigated in between the United Kingdom and the EU courts. There were a number of breakthrough decisions corresponding to the case within the EU law as well as the UK constitutional law. The acceptance of the Community law’s supremacy has raised certain problems. The basic lawful principle of sovereignty of Parliament has created obstacle towards accepting supremacy of the EC by the UK. With regard to the case, it is determined that ECJ stressed on providing interim relief as an obligation which superseded conflicting national principles. The domestic court had been necessitated to keep back national law. The other example of the contradiction within the jurisdictions of ECJ and the member States is Costa v ENEL (1964)8. The case basically highlights the conflict between the provisions of the Treaty and ENEL, a power based company. Costa being the shareholder of the company refused the payment of the electricity bill. He further claimed that the jurisdiction of the Italian government is contradicting the law stated by the ECJ. In this regard, the Italian government argued about the law, which was framed during the Italian Ratification Act. However, by applying the supremacy power of the ECJ, it stated that “The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of the 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 prevail”3. This apparently explains the legislation that allows the supremacy to the ECJ related to jurisdiction, with a view to avoid any kind of conflicts but the limitation to the sovereignty of the state courts within the legislation has given rise to contradiction pertaining to national interest. The above mentioned instances that reflect about the ECJ’s ruling against the authority of the member States show the supranational authority. Conclusion Conclusively, it can be mentioned that the study reveals that ECJ has made remarkable judgements on a wider base but has also compelled the European States to follow the jurisdiction given by it. The given examples of real cases depict the rulings of the ECJ which clearly contradict the interest of the member States. The above discussion reflects that the national courts have given power to the ECJ for deciding upon the disputes, with a view to avoid any kind of conflict. In this regard, the cases reveal the gap between the given supremacy power and contradiction to the national interest. This shows that the given legislation at the bottom line is not being able to mitigate the conflicts between the ECJ and the national and state courts effectively. References Case 3/76 Cornelis Kramer and others [1976] ECR 1279 Case 6/64 Flaminio Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 1, 2 Case 120/78 Cassis de Dijon [1979] ECR, 649 EUR-Lex.europa.eu, ‘Court Of Justice’ (2009) 297 eur-lex http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:297:0001:0006:EN:PDF> accessed 09 January 2014 Giuliano Amato and Jacques Ziller, The European Constitution: Cases and Materials in Eu and Member States Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009) 92-96. Paul Craig, ‘The ECJ, National Courts and the Supremacy of Community Law’ [n.d.] 35-51. R v. Secretary of State, ex parte Factortame (No 1) (1989)2 WLR 999 Stephanie Bier, ‘The European Court of Justice and Member State Relations: A Constructivist Analysis of the European Legal Order’ [2008] PL 1-4. Read More