Introduction
The principle of the supremacy of European Union law over national law is a fundamental tenet of the EU legal order. This principle dictates that, in areas where the EU has competence, its laws take precedence over the conflicting laws of individual member states. The case of Costa v ENEL, [1964] ECR 585, a landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), established this principle. The case concerned a conflict between Italian nationalization legislation and the Treaty of Rome, the foundational treaty of the European Economic Community (EEC). The ECJ, in its judgment, declared that the integration of member states’ laws with Community law makes it impossible for those states to prioritize unilateral measures over a system accepted by them. This judgment introduced the core idea that EU law holds unconditional authority and is not subordinate to subsequent acts of member states, ensuring uniformity and effective functioning of the European Union.
The Facts of Costa v ENEL
The facts of the Costa v ENEL case are essential to understanding the context in which the principle of EU law supremacy was established. Flaminio Costa, a shareholder in the Italian electricity company Edisonvolta, challenged the nationalization of the electricity sector in Italy. The Italian government had enacted legislation in 1962 to nationalize electricity production and distribution, establishing a new entity called ENEL (Ente Nazionale per l'Energia Elettrica). Costa believed that this nationalization violated the Treaty of Rome, specifically certain articles relating to the free movement of goods and competition within the Common Market. Consequently, when presented with an electricity bill from ENEL, he refused to pay, asserting that the nationalization was unlawful.
The case was initially brought before the Giudice Conciliatore (Justice of the Peace) of Milan. Costa argued that the nationalization law of December 6, 1962, was incompatible with both the Italian Constitution and several provisions of the EEC Treaty. The Italian government, however, contended that the national court was obligated to apply national law. Given the clash between national and Community legal instruments, the Italian court referred the matter to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the relevant Treaty articles. This request underscored a fundamental question of whether national courts should defer to national law or EU law when those legal systems collide.
The Italian Government's Argument
The Italian government argued that the ECJ did not have jurisdiction in this matter. It claimed that the Italian courts were bound to apply national law and not to interpret provisions of the Treaty of Rome. The core of the government’s argument was based on the traditional principle of lex posterior derogat legi priori, meaning that a more recent law overrides an earlier one. According to this principle, the nationalization law, being a later law than the Treaty of Rome, should prevail. The Italian government also suggested that an international treaty, such as the Treaty of Rome, was similar to other types of national law and thus subject to the same rules of implied repeal.
This approach reflects a classical understanding of state sovereignty, where national laws enacted by a nation's own legislative body take precedence over international agreements. The Italian government maintained that the Treaty of Rome could not constrain Italy’s sovereign right to legislate on matters of domestic policy and economic organization. The argument also hinted at the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, where a national parliament has the ultimate authority to make or repeal laws, unimpeded by external bodies or commitments. This position directly opposed the emerging concept of a supranational legal order under the EEC.
The European Court of Justice Ruling
The European Court of Justice decisively rejected the Italian government’s arguments. The court established that the preliminary reference procedure, which allowed national courts to refer questions to the ECJ, applied irrespective of domestic law whenever the interpretation of Treaty provisions was at stake. This ruling underscored that EU law had its own distinct legal order and did not rely on national legal frameworks for its application and enforcement.
The most significant aspect of the ECJ’s decision was the introduction of the principle of the supremacy of EU law. The court stated that the integration into the laws of member states of provisions derived from the Community made it impossible for the states to give precedence to a unilateral and subsequent national law over a legal system they had accepted. This declaration meant that EU law was not simply a set of international treaties but rather a separate and supreme legal order that member states were legally obligated to respect. Furthermore, the ECJ established that the binding force of Community law could not vary from one member state to another in deference to subsequent national laws. It reasoned that if the obligations of the Treaty could be called into question by subsequent legislative acts of member states, then the whole fabric of the EU would be rendered conditional and not unconditional. This emphasized the uniform and effective implementation of EU law across the entire union.
Implications and Impact
The Costa v ENEL judgment had far-reaching implications for the European legal system. It solidified the doctrine of EU law supremacy, which is now a fundamental principle for the interpretation of EU law and its relationship with national laws. This doctrine is a central aspect of EU integration, ensuring uniformity and coherence in the application of EU law across member states. Without it, the union’s capacity to operate effectively and achieve its objectives would be compromised.
The case demonstrated that EU law has a different nature from traditional international law. It established a system where states voluntarily ceded some sovereignty to the supranational level, accepting that the legal framework of the EU could impose limits on their domestic legal systems. This acceptance of the EU’s supranational nature was a departure from traditional notions of state sovereignty. It made clear that member states were subject to a legal order that was not created by them alone. The principle of supremacy, developed in this case, acts as a linchpin of the European legal architecture and provides a framework for the resolution of conflicts between EU law and national laws. This case has been cited consistently in subsequent ECJ decisions, underscoring the continuous importance of the doctrines developed in this ruling for the integrity of the EU's legal order.
Subsequent Case Law and the Evolution of Supremacy
While Costa v ENEL established the basic principle of supremacy, later cases further refined the concept and addressed its practical application. Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, [1970] ECR 1125, further established that EU law is not just supreme over national statutes, but also over the fundamental principles of national constitutions. This judgment made it abundantly clear that EU law could even take precedence over core national values, reinforcing its hierarchical position.
The Factortame series of cases, especially Factortame II, [1991] 1 AC 603, also significantly affirmed the doctrine of supremacy within the context of the UK legal system. It confirmed that national courts, even in the absence of explicit parliamentary intention, must set aside national legislation that contravenes EU law. These rulings demonstrate a consistent judicial approach in upholding the supremacy of EU law, irrespective of the complexities or conflicting national interests. They have solidified the position that EU law operates as a self-contained and supreme legal order. The Van Gend en Loos, [1963] ECR 1 case, established that EU law could create rights directly enforceable in national courts by individuals. These rights create an individual’s mechanism of direct access to an independent and impartial court that is both at a national and EU level to ensure the enforcement of these rights.
Conclusion
The case of Costa v ENEL was a watershed moment in the development of EU law. It established the critical principle of the supremacy of EU law over conflicting national laws. This principle maintains that, in areas of EU competence, EU law must take precedence to secure the effective operation of the EU’s legal and economic union. The decision of the European Court of Justice in Costa v ENEL was not just a legal decision; it was a move in establishing a truly supranational legal framework. Subsequent cases, including Internationale Handelsgesellschaft and Factortame, built upon this core ruling, creating a robust legal system where EU law reigns. This body of case law is not only of academic value but also a practical framework for the operation of the EU and its member states. This case and the case law it generated provided the framework for how the interplay between EU law and member state law functions.
