Factortame (No. 2, 1991): Supremacy of EU Law and the Limits of National Law
“When national law conflicts with EU law, national courts must set aside their own legislation and give priority to EU law.” The Factortame litigation illustrated this principle dramatically.
Hello again, fellow EU law learners. The case we cover today—Factortame (No. 2, 1991)—was truly shocking when I first read it. The courts openly declared that the famed “sovereignty of Parliament” in the UK could be curtailed by EU law. Beyond a fisheries dispute, this landmark case made clear that domestic courts may prioritize EU law over their own Parliament’s legislation. Let’s unpack the context step by step.
Contents
Background and Facts
The starting point was the UK’s Merchant Shipping Act 1988. By tightening vessel registration requirements, the Act effectively restricted Spanish fishermen from operating in UK waters. Spanish fishing company Factortame Ltd claimed their rights were unlawfully infringed and brought proceedings, which the UK courts referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The central question was what national courts must do when domestic legislation conflicts with EU law.
Core Issue: Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Supremacy of EU Law
At stake was how far the UK Parliament’s legislative power is constrained by the supremacy of EU law. The UK government argued that Acts of Parliament carry ultimate authority domestically, while the claimants insisted that, under EU supremacy, the UK statute had to be disapplied.
| Side | Argument | Core Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| UK Government | Maintain parliamentary sovereignty | Acts of Parliament possess the highest domestic authority. |
| Factortame (claimants) | Apply EU supremacy | Where national law conflicts with EU law, the court must disapply the national statute. |
The Court’s Judgment and Reasoning
The CJEU stated unequivocally: the supremacy of EU law is not a mere abstraction; it must be given effect. Therefore, the UK courts were required to refrain from applying the conflicting provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. Key reasoning points:
- EU law prevails over domestic legislation; courts must not apply conflicting national rules.
- Domestic procedural doctrines or appeals to parliamentary sovereignty cannot undermine the effectiveness of EU law.
- National courts are under a duty to take all measures necessary to secure the direct effect of EU law.
Impact on the EU Legal Order
Factortame (No. 2) offered the most dramatic demonstration of EU law’s supremacy, in direct confrontation with the UK’s doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The case went beyond mere respect for EU law: it confirmed that domestic courts have both the authority and the duty to disapply national legislation enacted by their own Parliament when it conflicts with EU law. This was a decisive moment in securing the autonomy and effectiveness of the EU legal order.
Criticism and Academic Debate
The judgment sparked intense debate in academia and politics. Some praised it for strengthening the rule of law and coherence of EU law, while others condemned it as an overreach undermining national sovereignty.
| Perspective | Main Argument |
|---|---|
| Critical | Seriously erodes parliamentary sovereignty and weakens democratic legitimacy. |
| Supportive | A necessary decision to ensure the consistency and effectiveness of the EU legal order. |
Contemporary Significance and Takeaways
Today, Factortame remains indispensable when discussing the clash between domestic constitutional principles and the supremacy of EU law. It drew renewed attention during the Brexit process and often features in explanations of why the UK ultimately chose to leave the EU. Key takeaways:
- A case confirming that national courts may disapply Acts of their own Parliament.
- A practical strengthening of the principle of EU law supremacy.
- A key backdrop for sovereignty debates that surfaced during Brexit.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
When the UK’s Merchant Shipping Act 1988 conflicted with EU law, the national courts prioritized EU law and declined to apply the domestic statute.
The clash between parliamentary sovereignty and the supremacy of EU law, and the role of national courts.
National courts must refrain from applying conflicting domestic statutes and are obliged to secure the direct effect of EU law.
It confirmed at a practical level that domestic courts can disapply Acts of Parliament that conflict with EU law.
Yes. Factortame remains central to discussions about EU law supremacy and the scope of national judicial powers.
In Closing
Factortame (No. 2, 1991) turned textbook principles into courtroom action. The message that national courts may themselves disapply Acts of Parliament brought the supremacy of EU law down from theory to reality. I always remember this line: “Legal supremacy proves itself in the effectiveness of remedies, not in procedure.” When tackling problems, walk the checklist—confirm the conflict → disapply immediately → apply EU law directly. If you’re unsure about jurisdictional nuances or borderline facts, drop them in the comments and we’ll trace the operational boundaries together. ๐
No comments:
Post a Comment