Public Law (LLB) Factoortame judgement - Essay Example

ion 2(4) of the ECA is precluded by section 2 of the very same act; which treats legislation that in effect, repeals section 2(4) a violation of EU Treaty obligations5. Claims for damages against the Crown or Parliament, till Factortame, had generally failed in the UK6. The UK courts, in order to promote Parliamentary sovereignty, were initially, reluctant to incorporate EC Law into UK legislation. The ECJ compelled the UK courts to act in accordance with the ECA 1972; while interpreting domestic legislation.

They were also required to comply with the ECJ’s rulings7. These developments have been cogently described, by the case law in the sequel. In Pickstone v. Freemans, the House of Lords directly applied Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, without making a referral to the ECJ8; and interpreted section 2 of the ECA 1972, as precluding UK law, from restraining EC law9. Van Gend11 engendered the all important direct effect concept in EC Law; and Francovich12, Brasserie du Pêcheur13, Factortame14 and Köbler15established a damages remedy for violation of EC Law by a Member State.

The effectiveness of parliamentary sovereignty can be appraised from the ruling in Factortame, wherein an important piece of legislation was suspended by the House of Lords, thereby affirming the supremacy of EU law over national law. Case C-213/89 Factortame Ltd & others v Secretary of State for Transport (1991) 1 AC 603. ECJ decision dated 19th June 1990 followed by UK House of Lords ruling dated 11th October 1990. Accessed December 19,