The principle of primacy of EU law, developed by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), ensures the effectiveness of EU law. It has three key aspects. First, the CJEU ruled that the temporal component and hierarchical status of a conflicting national rule are irrelevant—EU law must be applied if a conflict arises, unless the European rule does not qualify for direct effect. Second as to who needs to apply the principle, CJEU ruled that all state authorities are required to apply the principle of primacy. Third in regard to how to apply the principle, state authorities need only disapply the conflicting national rule, not annul it. However, this is only the CJEU's understanding of the principle, while the perspective of Member States is somewhat different. Member States accept the principle, but not as broadly and unconditionally as the CJEU has framed it. This is evident from the analysis of Member States' case law. Germany has the most extensive case law on the subject, whose main outcome are three limitations to the principle of primacy, based on fundamental rights, constitutional identity, and the exceeding of competences. These are rarely applied, although they have been invoked more frequently in the last five years. An analysis of Czech case law reveals a strong reliance on German jurisprudence, although the main case where the primacy of EU law is denied resulted from internal tensions between courts, not from a conflict with the EU. An analysis of Spanish case law demonstrates a more moderate approach and an adaptation of legal systems. An analysis of more recent Polish case law, however, shows a denial of the primacy of EU law, not as a legal opposition to the principle, but rather as a political move in a dispute with the EU. Through these analyses, it is clear that the principle of primacy is widely accepted, with Member States only having reservations about the CJEU's demands in exceptional cases.
|
