8579148
Descripción
Fichas por Emily Bache, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por Emily Bache
hace más de 7 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Van Gend en Loos | An individual (or a corporation) can rely on the provisions of the Treaties as against a national government, and can enforce its rights thereunder in a domestic court. "The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign right, albeit within limited fields." |
| Costa v ENEL | The acceptance by member states of the rights and obligations arising from the treaty carries with it a clear and permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, and any subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the aims of the Community cannot prevail. "the EEC Treaty has created its own legal system which…became an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States and which their courts are bound to apply." "Member States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and have thus created a body of law which binds both their nationals and themselves." "The executive force of Community law cannot vary from one State to another in deference to subsequent domestic laws, without jeopardising the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty." |
| Internationale Handelsgesellschaft | "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." |
| Simmenthal | Every national court at any level was obliged to give supremacy to Community law, and to apply it in preference to any national law that might be inconsistent. "every national court must…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 [Community law], if necessary refusing…to apply any conflicting provision of nation legislation…." |
| Factortame | After the ECJ confirmed the incompatibility of the Act with EU law, Factortame saw the House of Lords confirm the supremacy of EU law over national law in the areas where the EU has competence because of the UK acceding the EU treaties. |
| Macarthys v Smith | That pursuant to the European Communities Act 1972 Community law was part of English law and where English law was inconsistent with it Community law prevailed; that, accordingly, since article 119 took priority over any provision inconsistent with it in the Equal Pay Act 1970, the appeal would be dismissed. Lord Denning said "Community law is now part of our law: and, whenever there is any inconsistency, Community law has priority. It is not supplanting English law. It is part of our law which overrides any other part which is inconsistent with it." |
| Garland | The question was whether this policy amounted to discrimination contrary to Article 119, as it then was, of the Treaty, and whether the courts in England should construe the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in a manner so as to make it compatible with the requirements of Article 119. The House of Lords referred the matter to the ECJ, which ruled that the policy amounted to discriminations contrary to Article 119, and that Article 119 must prevail.’ |
| Pickstone and others v Freeman | the House of Lords did follow the advice of the ECJ from the Von Colson case as to interpret and apply national legislation adopted for implementation of a Community Directive in conformity with the requirements of EU law. Section 2(4) was used to justify the Court's interpretation of national law but only in so far as it was reasonably possible. Duke case was then distinguished on the basis that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was not intended to give effect to the later Community law or capable of doing so. |
| Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co | Gave purposive interpretation to legislation introduced to implement Directive. |
| Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of State | The EOC sought a declaration that certain provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, dealing with redundancy conditions for part-time workers, were indirectly discriminatory and therefore incompatible with EC Law. Held: The Divisional Court had the power, and should grant such a declaration. |
| Thoburn v Sunderland | Regarding the conflict between Parliament sovereignty and the supremacy of EU law, the court stated that there is a hierarchy of acts of Parliament and differentiated the constitutional statutes and ordinary statutes. They are protected from implied repeal by ordinary law. The protection from implied repeal had already been assessed in the Factortame case |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.