EUROPEAN UNION LAW

Q.1) Judging by the outcome of the explanation, Albus and Bellatrix are victims in their sector of employment and under the Provisoon of Directive 2000/78/EC this definetly to be prevented.

So an important principle of the EU Law is to consider the principle of supremacy of the EU Law and use this to give Albus and Bellatrix a course of action in the Ruritarian court. The principle of EU supremacy can be seen in the case of Costa v Enel, where it was held by the European Court of Justice that European Union law should always take priority over the national law of Member States regarding changes in rights and it does not seem fair for the individual. Leading on from this and going into more depth and support we must then look to the Van Gend test which was created from the precedent of Van Gend En Loos, which says that if there is a provision in the national law of a Member State that clashes with EU law, national law must be disapplied and EU law should be used instead. And in the case of Simmenthal it confirmed this rule when the ECJ held that; ‘in the event of incompatibility of a subsequent legislative measure by a Member State, every national judge must apply Community law in its entirety’.

This then leads onto the principle of Direct Effect on which the Albu and Bellatrix can rely upon. Direct Effect means that as its provisions have created rights which can be relied on by indiivuals in their national courts; the right for non discrimination from employers on the grounds of age or sex so this can be applied to Directive 2000/78 ECC. In Ratti the CJEU held; ‘if the time limit for implementation of a directive has not expired, it cannot have direct effect. ’ The three years in which Ruritania should have implemented ag...

... middle of paper ...

...cing is very important and the case of Impresa Construzioni highlights this when the national courts of Member States are unable to implement EU law correctly. The judgment of this case established that in such a situation, national courts can able to make preliminary references to the CJEU regarding the interpretation of an act of EU law onto national legislation.

Regarding the precendent of Impresa Construzioni, it shows that not only is Ruritania able to make a preliminary reference under Article 267 (1)(a) to the CJEU, but it is a highly suggested way of action for their national courts to undergo this process. This would guarantee that the Ruritanian government could be guided on how to apply the Directive suitably to their national legislation, in order for the State’s citizens to have their personal rights safeguarded under the application of the Directive.