Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T08:15:57.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

11 - Judicial Powers II: (Decentralised) National Procedures

from Part II - Governmental Powers

Robert Schütze
Affiliation:
University of Durham
Get access

Summary

Introduction

National courts are the principal judicial enforcers of European law. ‘Ever since Van Gend en Loos the Court has maintained that it is the task of the national courts to protect the rights of individuals under [Union] law and to give full effect to [Union] law provisions.’ Indeed, whenever European law is directly effective, national courts must apply it; and wherever a Union norm comes into conflict with national law, each national court must disapply the latter. The Union legal order thereby insists that nothing within the national judicial system must prevent national courts from exercising their functions as ‘guardians’ of the European judicial order. In Simmenthal, the Court thus held that each national court must be able to disapply national law – even where the national judicial system traditionally reserves that power to a central constitutional court:

[E]very national court must, in a case within its jurisdiction, apply [Union] law in its entirety and protect rights which the latter confers on individuals and must accordingly set aside any provision of national law which may conflict with it, whether prior or subsequent to the [Union] rule. Accordingly any provision of a national legal system and any legislative, administrative or judicial practice which might impair the effectiveness of [European] law by withholding from the national court having jurisdiction to apply such law the power to do everything necessary at the moment of its application to set aside national legislative provisions which might prevent [Union] rules from having full force and effect are incompatible with those requirements which are the very essence of [Union] law.

Functionally, the direct effect (and supremacy) of European law transform every single national court into a ‘European’ court. This decentralised system differs from the judicial system in the United States in which the application of federal law is principally left to ‘federal’ courts. Federal courts here apply federal law, while state courts apply state law. The European system, by contrast, is based on a philosophy of cooperative federalism: all national courts are entitled and obliged to apply European law to disputes before them. National courts are however not full European courts. For while they must interpret and apply European law, they are not empowered to annul a Union act.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnull, A., The European Union and its Court of Justice (Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar
Broberg, M. and Fenger, N., Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar
Claes, M., The National Courts’ Mandate in the European Constitution (Hart, 2005)Google Scholar
Dougan, M., National Remedies before the Court of Justice: Issues of Harmonisation and Differentiation (Hart, 2004)Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, C. et al. (eds.), The Future of Remedies in Europe (Hart, 2000)Google Scholar
Lenaerts, K., Maselis, I. and Gutman, K., EU Procedural Law (Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar
Slaughter, A. M., Sweet, A. Stone and Weiler, J., The European Courts and National Courts: Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change in its Social Context (Hart, 1998)Google Scholar
Ward, A., Judicial Review and the Rights of Private Parties in EU Law (Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnull, A., ‘The Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in EU Law: An Unruly Horse?’ (2011) 36 EL Rev 51Google Scholar
Beutler, B., ‘State Liability for Breaches of Community Law by National Courts: Is the Requirement of a Manifest Infringement of the Applicable Law an Insurmountable Obstacle?’ [2009] 46 CML Rev 773Google Scholar
Convery, J., 'State Liability in the United Kingdom after Brasserie du Pêcheur [1997] 34 CML Rev 603Google Scholar
Dougan, M., ‘The Vicissitudes of Life at the Coalface: Remedies and Procedures for Enforcing Union Law before the National Courts’ in Craig, P. and Búrca, G. de, The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford University Press, 2011), 407Google Scholar
Drake, S., ‘Twenty Years after Von Colson: The Impact of “Indirect Effect” on the Protection of the Individual's Community Rights’ (2005) 30 EL Rev 329–48Google Scholar
Gerven, W. van, ‘Of Rights, Remedies and Procedures’ (2000) 37 CML Rev 501Google Scholar
Kakouris, C. N., ‘Do the Member States Possess Judicial Procedural “Autonomy”?’ (1997) 34 CML Rev 1389Google Scholar
Komarek, J., ‘Federal Elements in the Community Judicial System: Building Coherence in the Community Legal System’ (2005) 42 CML Rev 9Google Scholar
Lauwaars, R., ‘The Application of Community Law by National Courts Ex Officio’ (2007–2008) 31 Fordham Int'l LJ 1161Google Scholar
Prechal, S., ‘Community Law in National Courts: The Lessons From Van Schijndel’ (1998) 35 CML Rev 681Google Scholar
Reich, N., ‘The “Courage” Doctrine: Encouraging or Discouraging Compensation for Antitrust Injuries?’ (2005) 42 CML Rev 35Google Scholar
Steiner, J., ‘From Direct Effect to Francovich: Shifting Means of Enforcement of Community Law’ (1993) 18 EL Rev 3Google Scholar
Toner, H., ‘Thinking the Unthinkable? State Liability for Judicial Acts after Factortame (III)’ (1997) 17 YEL 165Google Scholar
Tridimas, T., ‘Liability for Breach of Community Law: Growing Up and Mellowing Down?’ (2001) 38 CML Rev 301Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×