Ministero v IN.CO.GE, [1998] ECR I-6307

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

In March 2024, a new national regulation in Country X introduced a mandatory fee on imported solar panels. This measure aimed to protect the local solar panel industry from foreign competition. However, an EU regulation already prohibited discriminatory fees on goods from other Member States. A local company challenged the national regulation in court, claiming it conflicted with the directly effective EU regulation. The presiding judge must determine how to reconcile the national regulation with EU law.


Which of the following is the single best statement regarding the judge’s obligations in this situation?

Introduction

The principle of supremacy of European Union (EU) law dictates that in cases of conflict between EU law and national law, EU law prevails. This principle, established in the landmark case of Costa v ENEL, ensures the uniform and effective application of EU law across all Member States. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Ministero delle Finanze v IN.CO.GE [1998] ECR I-6307 reiterated this fundamental principle, emphasizing the obligation of national courts to disapply conflicting national provisions. This judgment clarified the direct effect of EU law and its implications for national legal systems. Key requirements stemming from this case include the immediate disapplication of conflicting national law by national courts, regardless of the nature or status of the national provision.

The Supremacy of EU Law and its Direct Effect

The doctrine of supremacy, as articulated in Costa v ENEL, established that EU law forms an essential part of the legal systems of Member States. This inclusion implies that national courts have a duty to ensure the effectiveness of EU law within their jurisdiction. Direct effect, a related concept, refers to the ability of individuals to rely on provisions of EU law directly before their national courts. The ECJ in IN.CO.GE confirmed that provisions of directly effective EU law must be given precedence over conflicting national law.

The Obligation to Disapply Conflicting National Law

The IN.CO.GE judgment explicitly states the obligation of national courts to set aside any provision of national law which may conflict with directly effective EU law. This obligation applies regardless of whether the national provision is prior or subsequent to the EU law. The ECJ clarified that national courts are not required to formally invalidate or annul the conflicting national measure. Instead, they must simply refrain from applying it in cases where it contradicts EU law.

Implications for National Legal Systems

The IN.CO.GE judgment has significant implications for the relationship between national legal systems and EU law. It strengthens the principle that national courts are responsible for safeguarding the primacy of EU law within their jurisdiction. This responsibility requires national judges to actively assess the compatibility of national law with EU law and to prioritize EU law in cases of conflict. This active role of national courts is essential for the effective functioning of the EU legal order.

Practical Application and Subsequent Case Law

The principle established in IN.CO.GE has been consistently applied in subsequent case law. For example, in the case of Commission v France (French Merchant Seamen), the ECJ reiterated the obligation of national courts to disapply national legislation that discriminated against workers from other Member States, even if that legislation had been adopted after the relevant EU Directive. This consistent application demonstrates the fundamental importance of the principle of supremacy and the duty of national courts to ensure its effective implementation. Specific examples include challenges to national tax laws, social security regulations, and environmental protection measures that were found to be incompatible with EU directives or regulations.

The Role of the ECJ in Ensuring Uniform Application

The ECJ plays an important role in ensuring the uniform application of EU law across all Member States. Through preliminary rulings under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the ECJ provides guidance to national courts on the interpretation and application of EU law. This mechanism ensures consistency and avoids divergent interpretations of EU law within different national legal systems. The ECJ's jurisprudence in cases like IN.CO.GE supports the development of a unified and effective EU legal order. The principle of disapplication is important for maintaining the uniformity and effectiveness of EU law and ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market.

Conclusion

The IN.CO.GE judgment provides a clear and definitive statement on the obligation of national courts to disapply national law that conflicts with directly effective EU law. This judgment strengthens the principle of supremacy and the important role of national courts in safeguarding the effectiveness of EU law within their respective jurisdictions. The principle of disapplication, as affirmed in IN.CO.GE and subsequent case law, is essential for ensuring the uniform application of EU law and maintaining the integrity of the EU legal order. The ECJ, through its preliminary ruling procedure, continues to play an important role in clarifying and strengthening this principle, thus contributing to the development of a unified and effective EU legal system. The consistent application of this principle, as shown in cases like Commission v France, highlights the importance of national courts actively engaging with EU law and prioritizing it in cases of conflict, thus ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and the protection of individual rights guaranteed under EU law. This principle, coupled with the direct effect doctrine, guarantees that individuals can rely on EU law before their national courts, further solidifying the inclusion of EU law into the national legal systems.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal