The Factortame litigation reasoned in 1970 is still significant across the legal system of the United Kingdom. As a Member State, the UK leads toward the delineation of the measures approached by the national law and Community law respectively. In fact, the role of the parliament as a legislative body of state power is significant in the international EU participation. Community law spreads over a huge part of the national well-being concerned with the economic features (partially with political ones). In this respect two legal parties are taken into consideration, i.e. Community law and national law. Nevertheless, the role of private parties in the infringement of Community law is underlined in the paper in order to point out the ability of such doing by a Member States at the national level.
Running the gamut of the national affairs in economic well-being, Community law serves as the mechanism for overall additional verification. In this case the direct effect of Community law is the supreme for Member States and has many to do with the national stability. Hanson remarks that “the principle of direct effect concerns the effectiveness of provisions of Community law once they enter the national legal systems.” In reality, the private parties in the process of Factortame litigation are greatly concerned to have an access toward the direct mechanism of economic regulations. Senden admits that the whole situation in EU much depends on how the “EC institutions apply the principle in practice.” The question is that the plurality of opinions creates “pit” of contradictions. Thus, the cases of Community law infringement at the national level can become more frequent. In turn it inflicts destabilization of economic influences in Western European countries.
The provisions of Treaty contemplate the consideration of rights and freedoms of people referring to different national entities among Member States. Each article corresponds to a specific case in the establishment of normal relationships between individuals. The infringement of some definite justifications under articles would reflect some negative outcomes on the European society. For instance, Hanson comments that “an infringement of Art 12 by Member States to the procedures under Arts 169 and 170 would remove all direct legal protection of the individual rights of their nationals.” Thus, Community law is considered to be prevalent over the national law in Member States.
Setting aside the national law among Member States would definitely contribute into the direct effectiveness of Community law. This statement can be continued by Lord Bridge’s opinion that such procedure under Art 177 impedes it from encouraging interim relief as for Community law. By limiting the power of Parliamentary sovereignty, the UK legal system enabled itself to make no breach with the Equal Treatment Directive. Even so, the UK House of Lords adopted the controversial approach toward ECJ’s direct effect that is implied in indirect representation of statutory instruments having been introduced quite expressly to give effect to a directive.
Hence, the House of Lords determined the way in which some exceptional legal cases should be regulated with a so-called overriding of Community law. However, the plain consideration of such principles and their practical use in terms of the unique and merely complicated legislative and judicial systems in the UK give grounds to introduce an indirect effect on economic processes for this Member State.
Bibliography
Anthony, G 2002, UK public law and European law, Hart Publishing, Glidden, WI.
Bradley, AW & Ewing KD 2007, Constitutional and administrative law, 14, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hanson, S 2003, Legal Method and Reasoning, 2, Routledge, London.
Hartley, TC 2007, The foundations of European Community law: an introduction to the constitutional and administrative law of the European Community, 6, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Senden, L 2004, Soft law in European Community law, Hart Publishing, Glidden, WI.