EU · Year 1 · EU Constitutional Law
Direct Effect & Supremacy
The CJEU's foundational case law.
Space flip · ← → navigate · S save
Show all 6 questions and answers in this book
1.Van Gend en Loos (Case 26/62, 1963) — principle?
Direct effect: Treaty provisions that are clear, precise and unconditional create rights individuals can rely on before national courts; the Community is a "new legal order of international law".
Case 26/62, EU:C:1963:1
2.Costa v ENEL (Case 6/64, 1964) — principle?
Supremacy (primacy): Community law takes precedence over conflicting national law, even later national law.
Case 6/64, EU:C:1964:66
3.Simmenthal (Case 106/77, 1978) — held?
National courts must set aside any conflicting provision of national law of their own motion, without waiting for it to be removed by the legislature or constitutional court.
Case 106/77, EU:C:1978:49
4.Marshall (Case 152/84, 1986) — held?
Directives can have vertical direct effect against the State (including emanations of the State) but not horizontal direct effect against private parties.
Case 152/84, EU:C:1986:84
5.Francovich (Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, 1991) — principle?
State liability: a Member State can be liable in damages to individuals for loss caused by its breach of EU law (here, failure to implement a directive).
EU:C:1991:428
6.Article 267 TFEU and CILFIT (Case 283/81)?
National courts may (and courts of last instance must) refer questions of EU law to the CJEU; CILFIT set exceptions, including acte clair where the answer leaves no scope for reasonable doubt.
Art 267 TFEU; Case 283/81, EU:C:1982:335