Simmenthal (1978): The Immediate Effect of EU Law Supremacy

“When national law conflicts with EU law, EU law must be applied immediately.” The Simmenthal judgment firmly confirmed this principle.

Hello, readers interested in European law. Today we look at the landmark Simmenthal (1978) decision. When I first studied this case, I wondered, “How does EU law supremacy work in practice?” While Costa v. ENEL and Internationale Handelsgesellschaft had already set out the principle, it was this case that first spelled out what national courts must actually do when faced with a conflicting national rule. Let’s walk through the essentials.

Contents

Background and Facts Core Issue: The Courts’ Role The Court’s Decision and Reasoning Impact on the EU Legal Order Criticism and Scholarly Debate Contemporary Significance and Takeaways

Background and Facts

The Italian meat importer Simmenthal S.p.A. imported beef from France. The Italian customs authorities imposed an additional national inspection fee. Simmenthal argued that such a fee was a measure already prohibited by the EEC Treaty, and brought proceedings. The Italian court then referred questions to the Court of Justice (CJEU), asking how to deal with a conflict between EU law and national law.

Core Issue: The Courts’ Role

The essential question was: What must a national court do when national law conflicts with EU law? Beyond acknowledging EU law’s supremacy in the abstract, the issue was which specific steps courts must take.

Side	Claim	Core Reasoning
Simmenthal	Direct application of EU law	Because the Italian measure conflicts with the EEC Treaty, the court must set aside the national rule and apply EU law immediately.
Italian Government	National law primacy / need for constitutional review	Only the Constitutional Court or a specific body may set aside national legislation.

The Court’s Decision and Reasoning

The CJEU spoke plainly: every national court has both the power and the duty to disapply any conflicting national rule. There is no need to await a constitutional ruling or legislative action. The Court’s key reasoning:

• EU law binds all courts of the Member States directly.
• Courts must refrain from applying conflicting national law and give immediate priority to EU law.
• Additional constitutional procedures or legislative intervention are not required.

Impact on the EU Legal Order

The Simmenthal ruling perfected the supremacy principle at a practical and procedural level. If Costa v. ENEL established the principle and Internationale Handelsgesellschaft extended it even to constitutional conflicts, Simmenthal made clear that every national court can—and must—disapply conflicting rules immediately. It transformed EU supremacy from a theoretical maxim into an operative tool.

Criticism and Scholarly Debate

Scholars have debated the judgment’s impact on domestic judicial systems. Supporters praised the gain in legal uniformity and speed; critics argued that it weakens the authority of national legislatures and constitutional courts.

Viewpoint	Main Argument
Critical	Over-expands the role of ordinary courts and undermines the authority of the constitutional court or the legislature.
Supportive	Immediate effect is essential to ensure the uniformity and effectiveness of EU law.

Contemporary Significance and Takeaways

Simmenthal remains a staple in judgments and classrooms alike because it offers concrete guidance to national judges faced with conflicts. In short:

• Conflicting national provisions are automatically set aside.
• All national courts are obliged to apply EU law immediately.
• A case that cements the supremacy principle at the level of day-to-day practice.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q What was the Simmenthal case about?

An Italian meat importer argued that a domestic inspection fee conflicted with the EEC Treaty and challenged it in court.

Q What was the core issue?

Whether a national court has the authority to immediately set aside conflicting national law.

Q How did the CJEU rule?

All national courts must disapply conflicting national provisions and give immediate priority to EU law.

Q Why is this case important?

It operationalizes EU law supremacy by making clear that courts must act immediately, without waiting for constitutional or legislative steps.

Q How does it differ from Costa v. ENEL or Internationale Handelsgesellschaft?

Those cases defined the principle; Simmenthal defined the national courts’ concrete role in applying it.

Q Is it still cited today?

Yes. Simmenthal remains a go-to authority for practical conflict-resolution between EU and national law.

In Closing

Simmenthal (1978) turned textbook doctrine into a courtroom playbook. I too initially wondered, “Can a court simply skip a national statute?” But the effectiveness of EU law gives the answer. When a conflict appears, don’t wait—disapply immediately. That single line makes all the difference in practice. If you’re unsure in a problem question whether national procedures can be bypassed, remember Simmenthal’s message. Drop tricky fact patterns in the comments and we’ll build a tighter checklist together. 🙂