Since the Maastricht Treaty formally established the European Union, there have been numerous discussions about the relationship between the European Court of Justice and the highest national courts of the Member States, as well as whether or not the European Court of Justice’s binding authority should continue to be absolute in those relationships. It will be argued why the supremacy of EU law and the European Court of Justice’s binding power should remain unquestionable throughout this article. As the European Court of Justice played a key role in developing a strong theory on the supremacy of EU law, its supremacy and primacy as well as its absolute binding power are inextricably linked. The Community “constitutes a new legal system of international law, for the benefit of which the states have reduced their sovereign powers, although within limited sectors,” as declared by the Court. Rather than being construed by the naturally arbitrary jurisprudence of national constitutional courts, this international legal order is to be implemented in the national legal systems of Member States, having priority over national law. However, I am inclined to believe that the supremacy of EU law is advantageous for every Member State, a crucial issue to ensure the survival of the Union, and is a crucial instrument to prevent domination of one. One could be excused for thinking that the arguments exposed are not entirely valid because member states retain, because the principle of supremacy is not textually enshrined in primary law, and because EU treaties recognized the national identity of Member States. Any national law provision that clashes with directly applicable EU legislation should not be used, as is the situation in. Therefore, the primacy principle need to be followed whether it conflicts with a small administrative action or a national constitutional standard.
Therefore, as it will be discussed in more detail in the lines that follow, the European Union needs the fairness, equality, stability, and cohesion that only come from the supremacy and primacy of EU law, as well as the subsequent absolute binding authority of the European Court of Justice over national courts.
A court or arbitral tribunal, for example, may have the authority to decide whether or not it is competent to address a particular matter.
Upholding the free market’s guiding principles and advancing the rights of the citizens who formed the Union require the national courts of Member States to use their authority over matters of law. As such, the Union’s stability and unity are protected by this ultimate bindingauthority. The European Court of Justice made it quite plain in the Vodafone case that only EU legislative action would maintain the integrity of the internalmarket when its functioning is at stake. If one follows this line of thinking, it is not difficult to claim that the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice is the only qualified one to determine matters involving the functioning of the internal market, without jeopardizing the integrity of EU law or the stability of the Union.
Seventhly, Wrap-Up
As I come to the end of this article, I’d want to restate my belief that the primacy and supremacy of EU law are inextricably intertwined with the effective operation of the European Court of Justice. There can be no credible European Court of Justice without granting EU law the preeminence and supremacy it demands and deserves. In spite of the fact that, as the essay explains, there are some academics who believe that national constitutional courts of Member States should have the final say on EU law as it pertains to matters within their territory, the European Court of Justice should be granted binding authority over national courts. It has been claimed that giving the Court of Justice this kind of total binding jurisdiction is the best way to ensure that it can accomplish its objectives with regard to the principles shared by all Member States and the Union as a whole. This absolute binding power helps ensure justice, equality, stability, and integration within the Union by preventing Member States from unilaterally putting themselves above EU law.
Daily magazine for entrepreneurs and business owners
