- Published on
Kembaraxtra -Case Law-R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p Factortame Ltd (No 2) (1990)
This case established the supremacy of European Union (EU) law (now EU law) over conflicting UK law. It's a landmark case demonstrating the limitations on parliamentary sovereignty accepted upon joining the European Communities (now the EU).
I. Facts:
The ECJ was asked for a preliminary ruling on whether a national court (UK court) must set aside a rule of national law that prevents it from granting interim relief in a case involving EU law. The ECJ ruled yes. A national court must set aside national law to ensure EU law is enforced, even if this involves granting interim relief against the Crown.
III. House of Lords (HL) Decision:
Lord Bridge cites Macarthys v Smith to support his decision. While not explicitly detailed in the provided text, this suggests that Macarthys v Smith may have involved similar principles of interpreting EU law in the face of conflicting national legislation. This reinforces the idea that the Factortame ruling was a logical continuation of existing legal interpretations.
VI. Study Questions:
This case established the supremacy of European Union (EU) law (now EU law) over conflicting UK law. It's a landmark case demonstrating the limitations on parliamentary sovereignty accepted upon joining the European Communities (now the EU).
I. Facts:
- Factortame: Spanish-owned fishing companies, registered as British under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.
- Merchant Shipping Act 1988: Required re-registration, effectively excluding Factortame due to their Spanish connections.
- Factortame's Claim: Argued the 1988 Act violated their EU rights under the EC Treaty and the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972). They sought judicial review and interim relief (an injunction to stop the Act's application).
- Court Proceedings:
- Divisional Court: Granted interim relief.
- Court of Appeal: Overturned the Divisional Court's decision. They stated UK courts couldn't disapply an Act of Parliament.
- House of Lords (HL): Upheld the Court of Appeal.
The ECJ was asked for a preliminary ruling on whether a national court (UK court) must set aside a rule of national law that prevents it from granting interim relief in a case involving EU law. The ECJ ruled yes. A national court must set aside national law to ensure EU law is enforced, even if this involves granting interim relief against the Crown.
III. House of Lords (HL) Decision:
- Lord Bridge's Opinion: The HL acknowledged the supremacy of EU law. Parliament voluntarily accepted limitations on its sovereignty when passing the ECA 1972. UK courts must, in final judgments, override conflicting national law with directly applicable EU law. Granting interim relief to uphold EU law is a logical consequence of this supremacy. This was not a novel concept; it was simply recognizing the existing supremacy of EU law.
- Key Principle: The HL confirmed that, where there is a conflict between directly effective EU law and UK law, EU law prevails.
- Supremacy of EU Law: EU law takes precedence over conflicting national law within areas covered by EU law. This is a fundamental principle limiting parliamentary sovereignty.
- Direct Effect: EU law can create directly enforceable rights for individuals that national courts must uphold, even if it means disapplying inconsistent national laws.
- Interim Relief: National courts can grant interim relief to protect EU rights, even if this involves disapplying national legislation, pending a final decision.
- Parliamentary Sovereignty (Limited): While Parliament remains sovereign, its sovereignty is limited by the voluntary acceptance of EU law supremacy as enshrined in the ECA 1972.
Lord Bridge cites Macarthys v Smith to support his decision. While not explicitly detailed in the provided text, this suggests that Macarthys v Smith may have involved similar principles of interpreting EU law in the face of conflicting national legislation. This reinforces the idea that the Factortame ruling was a logical continuation of existing legal interpretations.
VI. Study Questions:
- Explain the concept of the supremacy of EU law as established in Factortame.
- How did the different courts rule in Factortame, and why?
- What is the significance of the ECJ's preliminary ruling?
- How did Lord Bridge justify the HL's decision in relation to parliamentary sovereignty?
- What is the role of interim relief in upholding EU law?
- Research the Macarthys v Smith case and explain its relevance to Factortame.
- What are the implications of Factortame for the relationship between national and EU law? How does it affect the ability of a national court to interpret and apply its own laws?
0 Comments