|
If a
provision of national law conflicts with a provision of EC law, then EC
law should prevail in UK courts. |
|
Simmenthal
v Commission [1980] ECJ |
"It
follows [...] 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."
"A
national court ... is under a duty to give full effect to those
provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any
conflicting provision of national legislation, even if adopted
subsequently...."
|
|
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr [1970] ECJ |
"the law
stemming from the Treaty…cannot…be overridden by rules of national
law….[T]he validity of a Community measure or its effect within a Member
State cannot be affected by allegations that it runs counter to either
fundamental rights [in]…the constitution of the State or the principles
of a national constitutional structure."
|
|
EC law prevails where EC
Directives, which are not directly effective, are involved |
|
Duke v GEC Reliance Ltd [1988] HL |
The
principles of indirect effect were not applied.
Lord
Templeman:
"S.2 (4)
ECA 1972 does not…enable or constrain a British court to distort the
meaning of a British statute in order to enforce against an individual a
Community Directive which has no direct effect between individuals."
|
|
Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co [1990] |
The House of Lords
implemented the directive by using the purposive approach to interpret
legislation. |
|
Finnegan v Clowney Youth
Training Programme Ltd [1990] |
HL reverted to Duke position. |
|
Where there is a clear
conflict between domestic and EC law, UK courts appear reluctant to apply
Von Colson principle. |
