Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal Sp A (Case 106:77) PDF

Preview

Summary

Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal Sp A (Case 106:77)...

Description

Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA (Case 106/77) [1978] ECR 629, CJEU Simmenthal imported beef into Italy. In an earlier case, Simmenthal SpA v Italian Minister of Finance (Case 35/76) [1976] ECR 1871, the ECJ had ruled that the Italian law requiring importers to pay for public health and veterinary checks at the border was contrary to Arts 30 and 12 of the EEC Treaty (now Arts 34 and 30 of the TFEU). The Italian court ordered the refund of these fees paid by Simmenthal, and the Ministry argued that until the Constitutional Court set aside the legislation it had a good defence. The Italian court sought a preliminary ruling. [13] The main purpose of the first question is to ascertain what consequences flow from the direct applicability of a provision of Community law in the event of incompatibility with a subsequent legislative provision of a Member State. [14] Direct applicability in such circumstances means that rules of Community law must be fully and uniformly applied in all the Member States from the date of their entry into force and for so long as they continue in force. [15] These provisions are therefore a direct source of rights and duties for all those affected thereby, whether Member States or individuals, who are parties to legal relationships under Community law. [16] This consequence also concerns any national court whose task it is as an organ of a Member State to protect, in a case within its jurisdiction, the rights conferred upon individuals by Community law…. [21] It follows from the foregoing that every national court must, in a case within its jurisdiction, apply Community 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 Community rule. [22] Accordingly any provision of a national legal system and any legislative, administrative, or judicial practice which might impair the effectiveness of Community 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 Community rules from having full force and effect are incompatible with those requirements which are the very essence of Community law…. The CJEU ruled: ‘A national court which is called upon, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of Community law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provisions of national legislation, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await the prior setting aside of such provisions by legislation or other constitutional means.’

NOTE: While the CJEU states that any national court may set aside municipal legislation, this does not mean that such legislation is entirely void. It is only of no effect where there is a conflict between it and EU law. (b) EU supremacy in the United Kingdom courts The traditional view of the legislative sovereignty of Parliament would appear to conflict with the CJEU’s rulings on the supremacy of Union law. For Parliament’s legislation would

seem to take effect subject to EU rules, with any domestic court required to reject the provisions of an Act of Parliament which violated EU law. We must now consider how the UK courts have responded to this challenge. In order for EU law (known at the time of the UK’s accession as European Community, or EC, law) to become part of the United Kingdom’s domestic law, it had to be incorporated by legislation. This was done by the following provisions....