Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585

Facts

  • Flaminio Costa, an Italian citizen and shareholder in Edisonvolta, challenged the nationalization of Edisonvolta by the Italian government, which formed ENEL.
  • Costa refused to pay his electricity bill to ENEL, arguing that the nationalization law conflicted with provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
  • He claimed that Treaty provisions should take precedence over the Italian law on nationalization.
  • The dispute reached the Italian courts, which referred questions on interpreting the Treaty of Rome to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
  • The Italian government contested the CJEU's jurisdiction, maintaining that Italian courts were subject to domestic law and that national legislation should override Treaty provisions.

Issues

  1. Whether the CJEU had jurisdiction to interpret Treaty of Rome provisions in cases involving conflicting national legislation.
  2. Whether EU law, founded on the Treaty of Rome, has precedence over subsequent unilateral national legislation of a member state.
  3. Whether national courts must disapply national law conflicting with directly applicable EU law provisions.

Decision

  • The CJEU confirmed its jurisdiction to decide preliminary references from national courts on interpreting the Treaty of Rome, even in the face of conflicting national law.
  • The Court held that European Community law, once integrated by member states, cannot be overridden by later national legislation.
  • The Court recognized that the Treaty of Rome established a new legal order directly effective within member states.
  • Member states, by joining the European Community, voluntarily limited their legislative sovereignty and accepted the primacy of EU law.
  • The Court found that the principle of lex posterior derogat legi priori (the later law repeals the earlier) does not apply when national law contradicts EU law.

Legal Principles

  • EU law has supremacy over any conflicting national legislation.
  • EU law is directly applicable within member states and does not require further national enactment to be effective.
  • National courts must uphold EU law and set aside any national statutes that conflict with it.
  • By ratifying EU treaties, member states voluntarily restrict their legislative authority in areas governed by EU law.
  • The preliminary reference procedure guarantees uniform interpretation and application of EU law by all member states' courts.

Conclusion

Costa v ENEL established the supremacy and direct effect of EU law within member states, mandating that national courts disapply conflicting national provisions. This judgment created a fundamental limitation on member state legislative autonomy where EU law is applicable.

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.
No resources available.

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 May 2025. 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.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

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