0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
210 просмотров2 страницы
This document summarizes the landmark 1964 Costa vs ENEL case, which established the supremacy of European Union law over national laws. Mr. Costa opposed the nationalization of Italy's electricity sector and refused to pay his bill, arguing it violated the Treaty of Rome. The Italian Constitutional Court ruled national law prevailed over the earlier Treaty of Rome. However, the European Court of Justice disagreed and ruled that EU law could not be overridden by domestic laws, as this would undermine the legal basis of the EU. The ECJ established that EU law takes precedence and individuals can challenge national laws based on alleged incompatibility with EU law. This case affirmed that national courts must refer cases involving EU law to the ECJ.
This document summarizes the landmark 1964 Costa vs ENEL case, which established the supremacy of European Union law over national laws. Mr. Costa opposed the nationalization of Italy's electricity sector and refused to pay his bill, arguing it violated the Treaty of Rome. The Italian Constitutional Court ruled national law prevailed over the earlier Treaty of Rome. However, the European Court of Justice disagreed and ruled that EU law could not be overridden by domestic laws, as this would undermine the legal basis of the EU. The ECJ established that EU law takes precedence and individuals can challenge national laws based on alleged incompatibility with EU law. This case affirmed that national courts must refer cases involving EU law to the ECJ.
This document summarizes the landmark 1964 Costa vs ENEL case, which established the supremacy of European Union law over national laws. Mr. Costa opposed the nationalization of Italy's electricity sector and refused to pay his bill, arguing it violated the Treaty of Rome. The Italian Constitutional Court ruled national law prevailed over the earlier Treaty of Rome. However, the European Court of Justice disagreed and ruled that EU law could not be overridden by domestic laws, as this would undermine the legal basis of the EU. The ECJ established that EU law takes precedence and individuals can challenge national laws based on alleged incompatibility with EU law. This case affirmed that national courts must refer cases involving EU law to the ECJ.
Flaminio Costa versus ENEL [1964] ECR 585 (6/64) was a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice which established the supremacy of European Union law over the laws of its member states'. Mr. Costa was an Italian citizen who had owned shares in an electricity company and opposed the nationalisation of the electricity sector in Italy. He refused to pay his electricity bill, which amounted to 1,925 lire (0.99), in protest and was sued for nonpayment by the newly created state electricity company, ENEL. In his defence he argued that the nationalisation of the electricity industry violated the Treaty of Rome and the Italian Constitution. The Italian judge, the Giudice Conciliatore of Milan referred the case first to the Italian Constitutional Court and then to the European Court of Justice.
The Italian Constitution Court gave judgement in March 1964, ruling that while the Italian Constitution allowed for the limitation of sovereignty for international organisation like the EEC, it did not upset that normal rule of statutory interpretation that where two statutes conflict the subsequent one prevails. As a result the Treaty of Rome which was incorporated into Italian law in 1958 could not prevail over the electricity nationalisation law which was enacted in 1962. In light of the decision of the constitutional court, the Italian government submitted to the ECJ that the Italian court's request for a preliminary ruling from the ECJ was inadmissible on the grounds that as the Italian court was not empowered to set aside the national law in question, a preliminary ruling would not serve any valid purpose. The Court ruled partly in favour of the government because the relevant Treaty of Rome rule on an undistorted market was one on which the Commission alone could challenge the Italian government. As an individual, Costa had no standing to challenge the decision because that Treaty provision had no direct effect. However, on the logically prior issue of Costa's ability to raise a point of EC law against a national government in legal proceeding before the courts in that Member State, the ECJ disagreed with the Italian government. It ruled that EC law would not be effective if Costa could not challenge national law on the basis of its alleged incompatibility with EC law: It follows from all these observations that the law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its Iordache Liviu Group 950 character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called into question. This case is additional confirmation that under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, a court has an obligation to refer cases that have reached the highest point of appeal in their respective country, if there is a question of the application of EU Law. Costa had reached its highest point of appeal.
Chrysler Corporation v. Fedders Corporation, Salvatore Giordano, SR., Salvatore Giordano, JR., Bruno Giordano, Ignatius MacBrinn and Howard S. Modlin, 670 F.2d 1316, 3rd Cir. (1982)