European Court Of Justice: Overriding Uk Law?

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the highest court in Europe and has jurisdiction over member states of the European Union (EU). The ECJ interprets and ensures the uniform application of EU law across all member states. While the ECJ does not have the power to strike down national law, it has claimed to override national laws, including fundamental and constitutional laws, by expanding the scope of its powers and the scope of EU law through creative and politically driven interpretations of the treaties and laws. The UK has historically deferred to the ECJ on numerous occasions, but following Brexit, the ECJ's jurisdiction over the UK has been limited, with the UK Supreme Court rewriting the rules on the application of EU case law in UK courts.

The UK Supreme Court rewrites the rules on retained EU case law

The UK Supreme Court has rewritten the post-Brexit rules on the application of EU case law in UK courts, so that they apply retrospectively in proceedings concerning pre-Brexit events. This ruling may prompt the EU to raise concerns with the UK government about compliance with the 2019 UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement. It will also create greater legal uncertainty for businesses and individuals regarding the retrospective application of other legislation across the UK statute book.

The ruling in question concerned a claim for compensation for a delayed flight and whether there were 'extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of Regulation (EC) 261/2004, which excluded the case from the duty to compensate passengers. The flight in question was in January 2018, and the claimants commenced proceedings shortly after this, and before Brexit. The court found that the sickness of the captain that caused the delay did not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances'. However, most of the judgment concerned arguments over which law applied to the case.

At the time of the flight, the UK was an EU member state, so the EU Regulation in question was directly applicable in UK law, and Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) case law was binding on UK courts by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972. However, when Brexit took effect on 31 December 2020, the 1972 Act was repealed, and former EU legislation was incorporated into the UK legal system with some changes as 'retained EU law' by the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This prompted the question of whether EU law as it applied under the 1972 Act in 2018 or retained EU law as it applied in 2024 under the 2018 Act was relevant to the claimants' case.

The court noted that applying the orthodox approach would mean continuing to be bound by CJEU case law post-Brexit when hearing cases concerning pre-Brexit events. The judges felt that this outcome could not have been intended by parliament, and this judicial instinct for a presumed intention of maximum control over their decision-making appeared to dictate their overall approach. The court followed that section 6 of the 2018 Act applied in all post-Brexit proceedings before the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court, whether concerning pre-Brexit or post-Brexit events, so that these courts had the discretion to depart from CJEU case law where they considered it appropriate.

The Court of Justice of the EU interprets EU law

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interprets EU law to ensure it is applied uniformly across all EU countries. It also settles legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions.

The CJEU gives rulings on cases brought before it. The most common types of cases are:

• Interpreting the law (preliminary rulings): National courts of EU countries are required to ensure EU law is properly applied. However, courts in different countries may interpret it differently. If a national court is unsure about the interpretation or validity of an EU law, it can request clarification from the CJEU.
• Enforcing the law (infringement proceedings): This type of case is taken against a national government for failing to comply with EU law. It can be initiated by another EU country or the European Commission. If the country is found at fault, it must rectify the issue immediately or face a second case, which may result in a fine.
• Annulment of EU legal acts: If an EU act is believed to violate EU treaties or fundamental rights, the CJEU can be petitioned to annul it by an EU government, the Council of the EU, the European Commission, or in some cases, the European Parliament and private individuals.
• Ensuring the EU takes action: The CJEU can address situations where the Parliament, Council, and Commission fail to fulfil their obligations under specific circumstances.

The CJEU is known for making controversial decisions that have had significant policy implications across Europe. For example, its rulings have impacted EU working time law in the UK, gender equality in pay, and the rights of unions, refugees, and cross-border workers.

While the CJEU plays a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing EU law, it has been a contentious issue for some UK citizens, contributing to the decision to leave the EU.

The European Court of Justice has primacy over national laws

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the highest court of the European Union (EU). It is responsible for interpreting EU law to ensure its uniform application across all member states. The ECJ has been criticised for its controversial decisions, which have had significant policy implications for member states, including the UK.

The ECJ has primacy over national laws, including fundamental and constitutional laws. This means that EU law, formerly known as Community law, takes precedence over national laws in the domestic courts of member states. The ECJ has interpreted the EU treaties to expand its powers and the scope of EU law. For example, in the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft case in 1970, the ECJ asserted that Community law should take precedence over even the constitutional laws of member states, including basic laws guaranteeing fundamental rights.

The UK's relationship with the ECJ has been a contentious issue, particularly in the context of Brexit. Prior to Brexit, the UK had issued 612 preliminary rulings to the ECJ between 1974 and 2016, seeking interpretation and guidance on EU law. However, during the Brexit negotiations, the continued jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK was a point of contention, with some arguing that it was "judicial imperialism" for a foreign court to have power over the UK's affairs.

Following Brexit, the UK is no longer directly subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. However, the ECJ will continue to have a role in UK law, particularly during the transition period after Brexit. The ECJ can still rule on certain matters, such as infringement proceedings under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and preliminary references under Article 267 TFEU. Additionally, the ECJ will retain jurisdiction over cases that were pending before it at the end of the transition period until they are finalised, including decisions on appeals.

In summary, the European Court of Justice has primacy over national laws, including those of the UK while it was a member of the EU. This primacy allows the ECJ to interpret and apply EU law in a way that takes precedence over conflicting national laws. While the UK has regained some autonomy over its laws post-Brexit, the ECJ will continue to have a role in specific areas affecting the UK during the transition period and beyond.

The UK and the EU's 'future relationship' and the role of the ECJ

The UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit has been a source of contention, with the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) being a particularly sensitive issue. The ECJ is the EU's highest court, and it plays a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing EU law.

During the Brexit referendum, the slogan "take back control" from the ECJ was a key issue for many pro-Brexit voters, who wanted British laws to be interpreted by British courts. This sentiment was reflected in the UK government's stance during negotiations with the EU, with former Prime Minister Theresa May making departure from the ECJ's jurisdiction a red line. The UK government argued that continued jurisdiction of a foreign court over Britain's affairs would be untenable once it left the EU.

However, the EU has been firm in its position that the ECJ should have a role in interpreting EU law in any disputes between the UK and the EU. The EU's negotiating mandate states that the ECJ's interpretation of EU law should be treated as binding by any independent arbitration panel resolving disputes between the two parties. This is a standard provision in the EU's trade agreements with non-member states, and the UK has already signed up to this approach in the Withdrawal Agreement.

Despite this, the UK government has proposed that the governance arrangements, including dispute resolution, should be "appropriate to a relationship of sovereign equals," suggesting a rejection of any role for the ECJ. The UK's position may stem from its desire to distance itself from substantive EU law in the future and its views on procedural dispute settlement provisions.

The UK and the EU have implemented the Withdrawal Agreement, which sets out the terms of their future relationship. While the agreement acknowledges the role of the ECJ in interpreting EU law, it also provides for the establishment of an independent arbitration panel to resolve disputes arising under the agreement. This panel is to be comprised of legal experts nominated by both the UK and the EU, indicating a potential compromise on the role of the ECJ in the future relationship.

In conclusion, while the UK has sought to distance itself from the ECJ post-Brexit, the EU has been firm in asserting the court's role in interpreting EU law in any disputes. The Withdrawal Agreement reflects a compromise between the two positions, with an independent arbitration panel being the primary mechanism for dispute resolution, guided by the ECJ's interpretation of EU law. The future of the UK-EU relationship remains uncertain, but the role of the ECJ will undoubtedly continue to be a sensitive issue in negotiations.

The UK's departure from the ECJ's jurisdiction

The UK's departure from the European Court of Justice's (ECJ) jurisdiction has been a significant issue in the country's relationship with the European Union (EU). The ECJ is the EU's highest court, interpreting and enforcing EU law to ensure its uniform application across all member states.

Historically, the UK has deferred to the ECJ on numerous occasions, seeking clarification and interpretation of EU law. However, the ECJ's jurisdiction in the UK became a contentious issue during the Brexit negotiations, with some arguing that continued jurisdiction by a foreign court over British affairs was untenable. The UK government, including Prime Minister Theresa May and Brexit Secretary David Davis, made the ECJ's jurisdiction a red line in the Brexit negotiations. They asserted that the UK should regain control of its laws and their interpretation from the ECJ.

Following Brexit, which took effect on 31 December 2020, the European Communities Act 1972, which gave effect to EU law in the UK, was repealed. Former EU legislation was incorporated into the UK legal system as 'retained EU law' under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This marked a significant shift in the ECJ's jurisdiction in the UK.

While the UK is no longer under the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ, the court will continue to play a role in specific matters affecting the UK. The ECJ's jurisdiction in the UK during the transition period remained largely unchanged, with nearly all EU rules continuing to apply. However, as of 1 January 2021, the ECJ no longer has general jurisdiction over the UK regarding acts taking place after that date. The ECJ's jurisdiction going forward will depend on the negotiated agreements between the UK and the EU.

The UK Supreme Court has recently rewritten the rules regarding the application of EU case law in UK courts, stating that they will apply retrospectively to proceedings concerning pre-Brexit events. This ruling has raised questions about the UK's compliance with the 2019 UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement and created legal uncertainty for businesses and individuals.

Frequently asked questions