Talk:Law of the United States/sandbox

Conflict of laws
European Union law is applied by the courts of member states and where the laws of member states provide for lesser rights than European Union law, European Union law can be enforced by the courts of member states. In case of European Union law which should have been transposed into the laws of member states, such as Directives, the European Commission can take proceedings against the member state under the EC Treaty. The Court of Justice of the European Union is the highest court able to interpret European Union law. European Union law which can be directly enforced by courts in member states is said to have direct effect.

Simon Hix argues that direct effect and the supremacy doctrine has transformed the EU from an international organisation to a "quasifederal polity". According to J.H.H. Weiler, parallels to the architecture of the European Union can be found only in the internal constitutional order of federal states. Sergio Fabbrini argues that the European Union developed after the two world wars as Europe moved towards supernationalism with a multi-level system of governance. Vertical federalisation is mixed with horizontal separation of powers between the European Community institutions and therefore the EU does not conform to the structures of a conventional federal system.

Effect of EU law
In Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the provisions of the then EEC treaty were capable of having direct effect before the national courts of EEC member states. The result was to create an alternative manner of enforcing the obligations undertook by member states in the treaties, to the more traditional method of state enforcement in the form of enforcement actions taken by the European Commission at a supranational level. Individuals could now use national courts to invoke EU treaty provisions against member state governments. The pre-conditions for direct effect are that the provisions on which an individual wishes to rely are sufficiently clear and unconditional, and that there is no scope for member states to exercise discretion in implementation. Thus, a regulation that allows member states to privatise roads would not have direct effect and could not be enforced in the courts, because it provides that states may privatise roads, not must privatise roads. While direct effect was first developed in relation to treaty articles, the ECJ subsequently ruled that regulations and decisions could also have direct effect as well. In Marshall v Southampton and South West Area Health Authority (Teaching) (No 1), the ECJ ruled that while directives could also have direct effect, they could only do so in respect of public bodies. However, the ECJ has taken a broad view of what constitutes a public body and has found that a state-owned gas company was a public body subject to direct effect. In contrast treaty articles, regulations and decisions can have direct effect against private entities. Recommendations and opinions were held to not have direct effect, as they were not intended to be binding, though they should be taken into consideration when interpreting the European Union law they supplement or the national law they implement.

Indirect effect describes a situation where the courts in member states use European Union law to interpret national laws, as oppose to direct effect where European Union law is applied directly. Treaty articles, Regulations and Decisions can all have direct effect except where they are unclear or conditional. In such cases they may have indirect effect, but are unlikely to be of much use for interpreting national laws. Recommendations and Opinions cannot have direct effect, but may have indirect effect, when interpreting the European Union law they supplement or national laws, as established in Grimaldi v Fonds des Maladies Professionnelles [1989] ECR 4407 Case C-322/88. Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891 Case 14/83 established that Directives can have indirect effect in where an individual takes action in a national court against another individual, where a Directive can never have direct effect, or where the provision of the directive is not sufficiently clear and unconditional to have direct effect.

Francovich v Italy (1990) requires that the state pays compensation to individuals if it fails to properly implement a Directive.

Supremacy
In Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585 the European Court of Justice held that in situations where there is a conflict between the laws of member states and European Union law, European Union law prevails, because "a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail". However, according to the 1993 Maastricht Accord the European Union does not prevent member states from maintaining or introducing more stringent laws on working conditions, social policy, consumer protection and the environment, so long as these laws are compliant with the Treaty of Rome, which has relevant provisions in these areas. Some courts in member states have resented the supremacy doctrine though it is not commonly challenged and the European Court of Justice has encouraged legal interpretation in light of European Union law by courts in member states as alternative to repealing or amending laws of member states which conflict with European Union law. A source of tension has historically been the relationship between the constitutions of member states and European Union law. Unlike the UK, most continental European member states have written constitutions and some have constitutional courts with the exclusive power to interpret the national constitution. The European Court of Justice has rules that such courts must apply European Union law in its entirety, to avoid any conflicting provisions of national law. Until recently the French constitutional court has regarded itself not empowered to review administrative measures, as it did not recognise the review power and duty provided to it by European Union law. The German and Italian constitutional courts initially refused to strike down national laws which conflicted with European Union law. The legal system of the European Union depends heavily on the courts in member states to acknowledge and uphold European Union law, and to follow the interpretation of the European Court of Justice if there is one. The supremacy doctrine has found widespread acceptance, though the direct and indirect application of European Union law still needs to fully establish itself.