Introduction
This essay addresses a legal dispute in the fictional Member State of Euronia, which joined the European Union (EU) in 2007 and recently enacted the National Economic Stability Act (NESA) in 2026. The Act’s Section 12 asserts national legislation’s precedence over conflicting EU law, prompting a challenge by Luca, an Italian national, before the Euronian High Court. This scenario raises fundamental questions about the relationship between EU law and national sovereignty. Using the ILAC (Issue, Law, Application, Conclusion) framework, this essay examines: (a) the sources of EU law relevant to Luca’s claim, (b) whether the principle of supremacy requires the disapplication of Section 12, (c) the role of national courts in enforcing EU law, (d) the preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 TFEU, and (e) the broader tension between national sovereignty and EU membership, with reference to Brexit. The analysis aims to provide a clear understanding of EU legal principles and their application to Euronia’s situation, reflecting the complexities of balancing national autonomy with EU integration.
Sources of European Union Law Relevant to Luca’s Claim
Issue: What sources of EU law could Luca rely on in his challenge against a decision under NESA, and how do these operate within Member States?
Law: EU law derives from a hierarchy of sources with distinct legal effects. Primary law, including the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, forms the highest authority and is directly binding on Member States (Barnard, 2019). Secondary law, as defined under Article 288 TFEU, includes regulations (directly applicable in national law), directives (binding as to the result but requiring national implementation), decisions (binding on specific addressees), and non-binding recommendations or opinions. Additionally, general principles such as proportionality, legal certainty, and fundamental rights, developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), hold constitutional significance. CJEU case law itself is binding on national courts, ensuring uniform interpretation across the EU (Craig and de Búrca, 2020).
Application: Luca, as an EU citizen, could potentially rely on rights under primary law (e.g., free movement under Articles 20-21 TFEU) or secondary law, such as a directly applicable regulation or a directly effective directive, provided conditions like clarity and unconditionality are met (Van Gend en Loos, 1963). These sources must have full legal effect in Euronia, overriding conflicting national provisions regardless of Section 12’s assertions.
Conclusion: Luca’s claim likely rests on directly applicable or directly effective EU law sources, which must be recognised within Euronia’s legal system, highlighting the hierarchical superiority of EU law.
Supremacy of EU Law and Section 12 of NESA
Issue: Does the principle of supremacy of EU law require the Euronian High Court to disapply Section 12 of NESA?
Law: The supremacy of EU law, established in Costa v ENEL (1964), dictates that EU law prevails over conflicting national legislation, even constitutional provisions (Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 1970). In Simmenthal (1978), the CJEU ruled that national courts must immediately disapply national laws conflicting with EU law, without awaiting repeal. Further, Factortame (No 2) (1990) confirmed that national courts must set aside even Acts of Parliament incompatible with EU law. Declaration 17 of the Lisbon Treaty reinforces this principle as fundamental to the EU legal order (Craig and de Búrca, 2020).
Application: Section 12 of NESA, which purports to override EU law in matters of essential national economic interest, directly contradicts the supremacy doctrine. Indeed, the Euronian government’s assertion that EU law cannot override national parliamentary will is unsustainable under established CJEU rulings. Therefore, if Luca’s rights under EU law (e.g., free movement or economic freedoms) are breached by a decision under NESA, the High Court is obligated to disapply Section 12 to the extent of the conflict. This does not invalidate the national law but renders it inapplicable in Luca’s case.
Conclusion: The Euronian High Court must prioritise EU law over Section 12, disapplying it where it conflicts with Luca’s directly effective EU rights, in line with CJEU precedent.
Role of National Courts in Enforcing EU Law
Issue: What is the role of the Euronian High Court in enforcing EU law in Luca’s case?
Law: National courts are integral to the decentralised enforcement of EU law. Van Gend en Loos (1963) established direct effect, allowing individuals to invoke EU rights in national courts. Costa v ENEL (1964) affirmed that EU law integrates into national systems with precedence over domestic law. Simmenthal (1978) and Factortame (No 2) (1990) further clarified that national courts must disapply conflicting legislation and provide effective remedies. Article 4(3) TEU imposes a duty of sincere cooperation, requiring national authorities to ensure EU law’s effectiveness (Barnard, 2019).
Application: The Euronian High Court, as a national court, must act as an enforcer of EU law by protecting Luca’s rights against breaches under NESA. It cannot treat CJEU rulings as merely persuasive, as argued by the Euronian government; rather, it is bound to apply them. Furthermore, it must ensure an effective remedy if Luca’s EU rights are infringed, potentially by setting aside Section 12 where necessary.
Conclusion: The High Court plays a critical role in upholding EU law and must actively ensure Luca’s rights are protected, adhering to the principles of direct effect and supremacy.
Preliminary Reference Procedure Under Article 267 TFEU
Issue: Should or must the Euronian High Court refer questions of EU law to the CJEU in Luca’s case?
Law: Article 267 TFEU provides for the preliminary reference procedure, allowing national courts to seek CJEU rulings on the interpretation of EU Treaties or the validity of EU acts. Courts against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy must refer such questions, while lower courts have discretion to do so. The CILFIT (1982) case established the ‘acte clair’ doctrine, excusing mandatory references if EU law is clearly settled. Additionally, Foto-Frost (1987) prohibits national courts from declaring EU acts invalid, reserving this power to the CJEU (Craig and de Búrca, 2020).
Application: Assuming the Euronian High Court is not a court of last instance (i.e., appeals are possible), it has discretion rather than an obligation to refer. Given that the supremacy of EU law is a settled principle (Costa v ENEL, Simmenthal), the acte clair doctrine may apply, suggesting a reference is unnecessary unless novel issues arise regarding the specific conflict with NESA. However, if uncertainty persists about the scope of Luca’s rights or NESA’s application, a discretionary reference could ensure clarity.
Conclusion: The High Court is unlikely to be required to refer under Article 267 TFEU but may choose to do so if uncertainties remain, reinforcing uniform application of EU law.
Tension Between National Sovereignty and EU Membership
Issue: How does the Euronian scenario illustrate the tension between national sovereignty and EU membership?
Analysis: The principle of parliamentary sovereignty, a cornerstone of many national constitutions, conflicts with EU law’s supremacy, as established in Costa v ENEL (1964), which describes membership as a voluntary limitation of sovereignty. Euronia’s enactment of Section 12 reflects a desire to reclaim legislative autonomy, echoing concerns about democratic legitimacy often voiced by Member States. However, EU membership entails accepting pooled sovereignty to achieve collective goals, a reality underscored by Factortame (No 2) (1990), where even fundamental national laws were set aside. The Brexit process in the UK vividly illustrates this tension; arguments for leaving the EU often centred on restoring parliamentary control over laws perceived as dictated by Brussels (Goodwin and Milazzo, 2017). Similarly, Euronia’s resistance via NESA highlights a clash between national democratic will and EU integration.
Application: While Euronia’s concerns about sovereignty are understandable, its membership obliges it to adhere to EU legal principles, limiting unilateral action. Section 12, therefore, represents an untenable assertion of national autonomy within the EU framework.
Conclusion: The Euronian case exemplifies the constitutional friction inherent in EU membership, where national sovereignty is curtailed yet arguably enhanced through collective decision-making, a debate mirrored in Brexit’s legacy.
Conclusion
This essay has explored the complex interplay between EU law and national sovereignty through the lens of Euronia’s NESA and Luca’s challenge. It has demonstrated that EU law sources, underpinned by supremacy, require the Euronian High Court to disapply conflicting provisions of Section 12, reflecting national courts’ pivotal enforcement role. While a preliminary reference to the CJEU may not be mandatory, it could clarify unresolved issues. Ultimately, Euronia’s scenario, akin to Brexit debates, underscores the inherent tension between national autonomy and EU integration. These findings highlight the delicate balance Member States must strike, accepting legal constraints for broader cooperative benefits. This case study thus serves as a reminder of the ongoing constitutional challenges within the EU framework.
References
- Barnard, C. (2019) The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms. Oxford University Press.
- Craig, P. and de Búrca, G. (2020) EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
- Goodwin, M. and Milazzo, C. (2017) Taking Back Control? Investigating the Role of Immigration in the 2016 Vote for Brexit. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(3), pp. 450-464.
[Word count: 1520, including references]
