1. European Union Law Sources of Law

2. Learning Objectives
To state and describe the three main sources of EU law and their functions.
To explain the horizontal and vertical effects of EU law
To explain the differences between direct and indirect effects of EU law
Describe case law to demonstrate the supervisory function of the ECJ

3. EU law (created by the EU institutions) is binding on all EU Member states. They must ‘take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations of this Treaty...’

4. There are three main sources of EU Law: PRIMARY LEGISLATION: the Treaties SECONDARY LEGISLATION: Regulations, Directives, Decisions, Recommendations and Opinions. RULINGS: on cases brought before the ECJ.

5. TREATIES Agreements amongst all member states
Highest sources of law and form the basis of EU Law
Treaty of Rome
TEU
TFEU
Treaties have both vertical
And horizontal direct effect.

6. How could this be viewed positively and negatively?
REGULATIONS
Directly Applicable: become part of domestic law, no intervention is necessary.
Similar to an Act of Parliament, but if there is a conflict with national laws, the regulation prevails.
Regulations have both vertical
And horizontal direct effect
How could this be viewed positively and negatively?

7. DIRECTIVES
Formal instructions that require the amendment of national laws for a certain result.
In the UK, directives can either be implemented via statute or delegated legislation under the European Communities Act 1972.
May concern one all or member states.
Directives only have vertical direct effect.

8. Recommendations and Opinions
Decisions
Individual act addressed to a specified person, persons or firm.
They are only binding to the party concerned
No need for implementation.
Recommendations and Opinions
Non binding, persuasive value only.
Aimed at promoting the implementation of common practices.

9. Allows and individual to invoke a provision against the state
DIRECT EFFECT
Vertical
Direct
Effect
Allows and individual to invoke a provision against the state
Allows individuals to invoke a provision against another individual or a private company.
Horizontal Direct Effect

10. Von Colson v Land-Westfahlen
INDIRECT EFFECT
Compels national courts to interpret ‘so far as possible’ legislation in accordance with directives.
The member state has freedom to decide on form so long as it complies with the original aim of the directive.
Von Colson v Land-Westfahlen

11. ECJ-Supervisory Role
The ECJ has power under the TFEU for preliminary ruling procedure which ensures consistency.
Bulmer v Bollinger (1974) set the guidelines for referrals:
1.There is no need to refer a case already decided by the ECJ
2.Acte Clair Doctrine.
3.Courts must refer when there is no further appeal
See Marshall v Southampton area Health Authority (1986) for this function in action.

12. Persuasive= can be taken into account but doesn't have to be followed
Direct Effect= allows individuals to rely upon EU law (even if the member state has not implemented EU law)
Direct Applicability= automatically binding and immediately part of domestic law
Persuasive= can be taken into account but doesn't have to be followed
Domestic law=the national law of the individual member state.
Vertical direct effect= allows individuals to rely upon European provisions against the State
Horizontal direct effect= allows individuals to rely upon a European provisions against another individual or a private company.
Indirect effect= compels national courts to interpret ‘so far as possible’ national legislation in accordance with the aims of the Directive.
TERMINOLOGY

13. GRADE BOOST:
Include a range of case law to illustrate how the position of EU laws had been decided by the courts:
Defrenne v Sabeena (1976) Facts?
Pubblico Ministerio v Ratti (1979) Facts?
Costa v ENEL (1964) landmark ruling-facts?
R v.Secretary State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (no.2) (1990) Facts?
What did Lord Denning say in regards to supremacy in Bulmer v Bollinge (1974) ?
Think about what s.2(1) of the ECA 1972 means in regards to supremacy.
Familiarity with Pickstone v Freemans PLC (1988) & Marleasing (1990) will help you to demonstrate the importance of the Factortame case.