You are on page 1of 219

EUROPEAN UNION LAW IN THE UNITED KINGDOM COURTS CENTRAL ISSUES This chapter will begin by examining the

e key Eu !"ean Uni!n #EU$ " in%i"&e' !( )i e%t e((e%t an) 'u" ema%y. o These t*in " in%i"&e' continue to determine nati!na& +u)i%ia& e'"!n'e' t! EU &a*, o Neithe )i e%t e((e%t n! 'u" ema%y ha e a (! ma& -a'i' in the T eaty !n the .un%ti!ning !( the Eu !"ean Uni!n !T"EU# -ut *e e )e/e&!"e) -y the Eu !"ean C!u t !( 0u'ti%e !EC$# on its un)e 'tan)ing that the EU %!n'titute' 1a ne* &ega& ! )e 2 o Di e%t e((e%t a""&ie' in " in%i"&e t! a&& -in)ing " !/i'i!n' !( EU &a*% although its e&act meaning remains contested.

o The )!%t ine !( 'u" ema%y means that% in the e ent o' %!n(&i%t -et*een a " !3/i'i!n !( Eu !"ean an) nati!na& &a*% the nati!na& %!u t' a e )uty3 -!un) t! a""&y the (! me , In their attempts to e%!n%i&e the )!%t ine' !( )i e%t e((e%t an) 'u" ema%y *ith the )!%t ine !( "a &iamenta y '!/e eignty% the U( courts ha e produced two responses to EU law in their case law) the 1%!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h an) the 1)i'a""&i%ati!n a"" !a%h, o The e4ui ement t! 1)i'a""&y25 ! 1'et a'i)e2% nati!na& &a* )!e' n!t mean that nati!na& &a* i' nu&&i(ie) and rendered oid* athe 5 the !((en)ing " !/i'i!n !( nati!na& &a* emain' /a&i) &a* and maybe &egitimate&y a""&ie) in an!the %a'e n!t in/!&/ing EU &a*,

Many nati!na& %!u t' are uneasy with the idea o' unconditional supremacy and ha/e e'e /e) (! them'e&/e' a "!*e !( u&timate %!n'tituti!na& e/ie* !( EU &a*, o +y way o' %!nt a't% the UK %!u t' ha/e t a)iti!na&&y n!t -een a' a''e ti/e . o o The most important case to date has been the H!u'e !( L! )'2 )e%i'i!n in .a%t! tame. o This chapter will not only e&amine the 'actual bac,ground o' the case% but also analyse the constitutional impact that the case has had. A&th!ugh the H!u'e !( L! )' a""ea ' t! a%%e"t the EC0' m!ni't /ie* !( un%!n)iti!na& 'u" ema%y% the High C!u t% in the case o' Thoburn% too, a )i((e ent a"" !a%h.

INTRODUCTION Constitutional issue arise 'rom accession to EEC This chapter is about how membership o' the European Union !EU# has a''ected public law cases. -ost litigation in ol ing issues o' EU law ta,es place not in the European Court o' $ustice !EC$# in Lu&embourg% but in the courts and tribunals o' the member states. In the Unite) King)!m% 4ue'ti!n' !( EU &a* a i'e in many )i((e ent ty"e' !( " !%ee)ing in )i/e 'e %!u t' an) t i-una&', This chapter will e&amine the constitutional %ha&&enge' (! the nati!na& %!u t' u"!n the Unite) King)!m' a%%e''i!n t! the Eu !"ean E%!n!mi% C!mmunity #EEC$ on . $anuary ./01% as well as the e olution o' their responses since that date.

2a ing initially accepted the incoming tide o' Community law% either through consistent interpretation o' national law in con'ormity with Community law or through disapplication o' contrary national law% the ti)e a""ea ' t! -e turning and national courts in the United (ingdom% as well as in other member states% ha e started to argue that they *i&& a''e t nati!na&&y " !te%te) (un)amenta& ight' again't the 'u" ema%y !( EU &a*,

3EU4 Law is new terminology to be used and superior to all 'orm o' national law* 3Community law4 only con'ined to history +56 .7.. EUR58EAN C5--UNIT9 LA: AN; EUR58EAN UNI5N LA: In the course o' this chapter we will be re'erring to 3European Community !EC# law4% as well as to 3European Union !EU# law<. 8rior to the Lisbon Treaty% the distinction between European Community !8illar I# law and European Union !8illars II and III# law was signi'icant and substanti e) it was only in cases in which a con'lict arose between EC law and the law o' a member state that EC law too, precedence. !EU law% by contrast% was intergo ernmental in nature and did not create 3a new legal order4 that produced rights and obligations 'or indi iduals.#

As we discussed in Chapter .=% the Lisbon Treaty changes not only the structure o' the European Union !the 3European Community4 has ceased to e&ist#% but also the terminology. 3C!mmunity &a*2 i' n!* %!n(ine) t! hi't! y, As a result% re'erences in this chapter to 3Community law4 ha e to be understood in that !historical# conte&t. As o' . ;ecember =>>/% EU &a* i' 'u"e i! t!5 an) take' " e%e)en%e !/e 5 a&& (! m' !( nati!na& &a*, In cases in which the EC$4s decisions on EC law ha e continuing and general rele ance% the ne* te min!&!gy !( 1EU &a*2 i' u'e),

THE CREEPING # $ CONSTITUTIONALI6ATION O. EUROPEAN UNION LAW ;irect e''ect and Supremacy o' EU shape the EU constitutional and underpin the way in which EU law handled by domestic court Two legal principles ha e not only 'ha"e) the %!n'tituti!na& a %hite%tu e !( the EU% but !more importantly 'or present purposes# also un)e "in the *ay in *hi%h EU &a* i''ue' a e han)&e) -y the UK %!u t' and tribunals. The (i 't " in%i"&e o' )i e%t e((e%t means that in)i/i)ua&' a e a-&e t! en(! %e EU ight' an) !-&igati!n' )i e%t&y -e(! e thei nati!na& %!u t', C! e'"!n)ing&y5 nati!na& %!u t' a e un)e an !-&igati!n t! a""&y EU &a*,

The 'e%!n) and related principle o' the 'u" ema%y !( EU &a* means that any nati!na& &a* in %!n(&i%t *ith EU &a* i' en)e e) ina""&i%a-&e. UK %!u t' 'ti&& )! n!t ha/e the "!*e !( %!n'tituti!na& e/ie*? that is% they %ann!t )eem a 'tatute t! -e nu&& an) /!i) because it is unconstitutional. 2owe er in the %!ntext !( EU &a*% they )! ha/e an !-&igati!n t! 1)i'a""&y25 !r set aside% nati!na& &a* that i' (!un) t! -e in %!n(&i%t *ith EU &a*,

;irect e''ect and supremacy cannot 'ound in any treaty but de eloped by EC$ only These two principles %ann!t -e (!un) in the t eatie', They *e e )e/e&!"e) -y the EC0 in two cases% decided in the early ./@>s% which are the %! ne 't!ne' !( the EU &ega& ! )e . The t*! " in%i"&e' ha/e -een a%%e"te) -y a&& mem-e 'tate' a' "a t !( the a%4ui' %!mmunautai e !that is% the enti e -!)y !( Eu !"ean &a*'#.

In short% the " in%i"&e' !( )i e%t e((e%t an) 'u" ema%y )ete mine the 'ituati!n' in which a &itigant a""ea ing in a UK %!u t ! t i-una& %an %&aim that ight' ! !-&igati!n' a e % eate) )i e%t&y -y EU &egi'&ati!n it'e&(% *ith!ut the nee) (! any nati!na& &egi'&ati!n t! ha/e im"&emente) it int! the &ega& 'y'tem o' the member state. This method was "a ti%u&a &y im"! tant )u ing the ea &y "ha'e' !( the C!mm!n Ma ket and he a&)e) the % ee"ing %!n'tituti!na&i7ati!n !( C!mmunity &a*.

C!u t 8) Di e%t e((e%t 'rom the treaty as it impose the obligation to indi idual% member states and Community institution% which the right needed to be protected by court without national legislation The (i 't &an)ma k %a'e in/!&/e' a Dut%h haulage company called an Aend en Loos. The company was importing a consignment o' a chemical product into the Netherlands. Con'ronted by an increase in the duty applicable to the product% the company obBected that the change to the ;utch rules in'ringed the Treaty. The ;utch authorities responded that the rules in the Treaty did not create rights on which indi iduals or companies could rely. The Dut%h %!u t re'erred the case under Art. .@0 T"EU to the EC$% which set out the basic principle o' direct e''ect.

Case =@C@= NDAIgemene Transporten E&peditie 5nderneming 9an Gen) en L!!' Nederlandse Administrate der +eiastingen Netherlands Inland Re enue Administration E./@1F ECR The European Economic Community constitutes a new legal order o' international law 'or the bene'it o' which the States ha e limited their so ereign rights% albeit within limited 'ields% and the subBects o' which comprise not only the -ember States but also their nationals. Independently o' the legislation o' -ember States% Community law not only imposes obligations on indi iduals but is also intended to con'er upon them rights which become part o' their legal heritage.

The'e ight' a i'e n!t !n&y *he e they a e ex" e''&y g ante) -y the T eaty but also -y ea'!n !( !-&igati!n' *hi%h the T eaty im"!'e' in a %&ea &y )e(ine) *ay u"!n in)i/i)ua&' a' *e&& a' u"!n the Mem-e State' an) u"!n the in'tituti!n' !( the C!mmunity. E...F According to the spirit% the general scheme and the wording o' the EEC Treaty% EArticle 1> T"EUF must be interpreted as " !)u%ing )i e%t e((e%t' an) % eating in)i/i)ua& ight' *hi%h nati!na& %!u t' mu't " !te%t,

3 ;irect e''ect and direct applicable is di''erent% direct applicable 'rom the treaty regard to certain pro isions while direct e''ect 'rom Dan Aend which all EU Law is binding and national court must protect the right 9ou will recall 'rom Chapter .= that% under Art. =77 T"EU% EU egu&ati!n' are 3)i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e2 in ea%h mem-e 'tate. 3Di e%t&y a""&i%a-&e2 mean' that %e tain " !/i'i!n' !( EU &a* !such as regulations and some Treaty pro isions# -e%!me nati!na& &a* *ith!ut (u the ena%tment. The %!n%e"t !( )i e%t a""&i%a-i&ity 'tem' ( !m the ! igina& T eaty and e(e ' t! the meth!) !( in%! "! ati!n. Thi' 'h!u&) n!t -e %!n(u'e) *ith )i e%t e((e%t% which is a tool )e/e&!"e) -y the EC0 in /an Gen) and a""&ie' in " in%i"&e t! a&& -in)ing EU &a* !Treaty pro isions% regulations% and directi es# that %an -e e&ie) !n -y in)i/i)ua&' in thei nati!na& %!u t',

Certain pro isions o' EU law are directly e''ecti e in that they % eate 1in)i/i)ua& ight' that the nati!na& %!u t' ha/e t! " !te%t2 *ith!ut any im"&ementing mea'u e in the mem-e 'tate in 4ue'ti!n,

G ;irect e''ect re'er to right en'orceable by legal indi iduals rather than public authorities :hen the EC$ uses the term 3)i e%t e((e%t2% it e(e ' t! ight' #n!t !-&igati!n'$: m! e '"e%i(i%a&&y5 it e(e ' t! the ight' that a e en(! %ea-&e -y &ega& in)i/i)ua&' !natural persons or pri ately held companies# athe than -y "u-&i% auth! itie',

G Di e%t e((e%t2' ; meaning') EU law able to be in o,ed be'ore the court and EU law con'er the right on indi iduals which they may en'orce Eperhaps not so importantF There are t*! *ay' in which )i e%t e((e%t %an -e un)e 't!!), 5n the one hand% direct e''ect maybe understood as 3!-+e%ti/e )i e%t e((e%t2. According to this understanding% direct e''ect re'ers to 3the %a"a%ity !( a " !/i'i!n !( EU &a* t! -e in/!ke) -e(! e a nati!na& %!u t2. o I' you in o,e a law% y!u 'tate that y!u a e taking a "a ti%u&a a%ti!n -e%au'e that &a* a&&!*' ! te&&' y!u t! +ut on the other hand% it may also be understood as 3'u-+e%ti/e )i e%t e((e%t2) it re'ers to the <%a"a%ity !( a " !/i'i!n !(EU &a* t! %!n(e ight' !n in)i/i)ua&' which they may en'orce be'ore national courtsH

The )i((e en%e between the two understandings may only be '&ight% but it has im"! tant " a%ti%a& %!n'e4uen%e'. Under the 'irst de'inition% an in)i/i)ua& ha' !n&y the ight t! in/!ke EU &a*% *he ea' under the second de'inition% an in)i/i)ua& ha' the ight t! e&y !n a 'u-'tanti/e EU ight -e(! e the nati!na& %!u t ?'or e&ample% the ight n!t t! -e )i'% iminate) again't !n g !un) !( nati!na&ity, o Lutticke Hauptzollamt Saarlouis E./@@F

G = %!n)iti!n' !( )i e%t e((e%t) clear% unconditional and operation is independent Echanges ha e been made% see belowF The EC05 in /an Gen)5 i)enti(ie) th ee %!n)iti!n' t! -e met -e(! e a T eaty " !/i'i!n %!u&) ha/e )i e%t e((e%t, o The " !/i'i!n mu't -e %&ea an) " e%i'e !that is% the concepts contained in the " !/i'i!n mu't n!t &ea/e t! the mem-e 'tate' an e&ement !( )i'% eti!n in applying EU law#. o It must be un%!n)iti!na& !that is% it must n!t )e"en) !n the %!nt !&5 +u)gement5 ! )i'% eti!n !( an EU in'tituti!n or another member state#. o Its !"e ati!n mu't n!t -e )e"en)ent !n (u the a%ti!n -eing taken -y EU ! nati!na& auth! itie' !sometimes% the ight' g ante) -y EU &a* *i&& %!me int! e((e%t *hen (u the a%ti!n !( a &egi'&ati/e !

exe%uti/e natu e has been ta,en by the EU or the member states#.

G ;irect e''ecti e and direct applicable to directi e% treaty and regulations These initia& %!n)iti!n' ha/e -een m!)i(ie) o er the years% but% 'or now% they %!n/ey the e''en%e !( )i e%t e((e%t% which is that a " !/i'i!n !( EU &a* ha' t! -e 1'e&(3exe%uting2. It is there'ore possible 'or) o a )i e%ti/e to be )i e%t&y e((e%ti/e !i' it is clear% precise% unconditional% and creates rights#% -ut n!t )i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e !a directi e requires further implementation#% o 'or a T eaty " !/i'i!n t! -e )i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e% -ut n!t )i e%t&y e((e%ti/e !because it does not satisfy the three conditions of direct effect#% and o 'or a egu&ati!n to be -!th )i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e an) )i e%t&y e((e%ti/e,

C!u t ;> EU law cannot be o erride by domestic law EsupremacyF due to state ha e submit their so ereignty to Community and state cannot nulli'y its e''ect unilaterally without 'ollowing the procedure to derogate The second landmar, case% C!'ta / ENEL% e'ta-&i'he) the 'u" ema%y5 " ima%y5 ! " e%e)en%e !( C!mmunity #n!* EU$ &a* !/e nati!na& &a*, Since the purpose o' the EEC *a' the % eati!n !( a %!mm!n ma ket between di''erent states% the EC$ argued that thi' aim *!u&) -e un)e mine) i( C!mmunity &a* *e e t! -e )eeme) t! -e 'u-! )inate t! the nati!na& &a*' o' the member states. Costa in ol ed a challenge to the legality o' an electricity bill issued by the newly nationaliIed Italian state electricity authority. The Court echoed its ruling in an Aend% but also went one step 'urther.

Case @C@J .&amini! C!'ta / ENEL E./@JF ECR <7<% </1GJ +y contrast with ordinary international treaties% the EEC Treaty has created its own legal sysKtem which% on the entry into 'orce o' the Treaty% became an integral part o' the legal systems o' the member states and which their courts are bound to apply. +y creating a Community o' unlimited duration% ha ing its own institutions% its own personality% its own legal capacity and capacity o' representation on an international plane and% more particularly% ea& "!*e ' 'temming ( !m a &imitati!n !( '!/e eignty ! a t an'(e !( "!*e ' ( !m the 'tate' !( the C!mmunity% the mem-e 'tate' ha/e &imite) thei '!/e eign ight'% albeit within limited 'ields% and ha e thus % eate) a -!)y !( &a* *hi%h -in)' -!th thei nati!na&' an) them'e&/e',

The integration into the laws o' each member state o' pro isions which deri e 'rom the Community% and more generally the terms and the spirit o' the Treaty% ma,e it impossible 'or the states% as a corollary% to accord precedence to a unilateral and subseLuent measure o er a legal system accepted by them on a basis o' reciprocity. Such a measure cannot there'ore be inconsistent with that legal system. The e&ecuti e 'orce o' Community law cannot ary 'rom one state to another in de'erence to subseLuent domestic laws% without BeopardiIing the attainment o' the obBecti es o' the Treaty set out in EArt. J!1# TEUF. The obligations underta,en under the Treaty establishing the Community would not be unconditional% but merely contingent% i' they could be called in Luestion by subseLuent legislati e acts o' the signatories.

Whe e/e the T eaty g ant' the 'tate' the ight t! a%t uni&ate a&&y5 it )!e' thi' -y %&ea an) " e%i'e " !/i'i!n' E...F. A""&i%ati!n'5 -y mem-e 'tate' (! auth! ity t! )e !gate ( !m the T eaty a e 'u-+e%t t! a '"e%ia& auth! i7ati!n " !%e)u e E...F which would lose thei "u "!'e i( the mem-e 'tate' %!u&) en!un%e thei !-&igati!n' -y mean' !( an ! )ina y &a*. The " e%e)en%e !( C!mmunity &a* is con'irmed by EArt. =@0 T"EUF% whereby a regulation <'ha&& -e -in)ing< an) <)i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e in a&& mem-e 'tate'<, This " !/i'i!n% which is subBect to no reser ation% would be 4uite meaning&e'' i( a 'tate %!u&) uni&ate a&&y nu&&i(y it' e((e%t' by means o' a legislati e measure which could pre ail o er Community law.

It 'ollows 'rom all these obser ations that the &a* 'temming ( !m the T eaty% an in)e"en)ent '!u %e !( &a*5 %!u&) n!t5 -e%au'e !( it' '"e%ia& an) ! igina& natu e5 -e !/e i))en -y )!me'ti% &ega& " !/i'i!n'% howe er 'ramed% without being depri ed o' its character as Community law and without the legal basis o' the Community itsel' being called into Luestion.

G ;irect e''ect and supremacy reLuire national court to disapply the domestic law i' con'lict According to the EC$% Community law !now EU law# is an autonomous system o' law% the alidity o' which cannot be called into Luestion by the national laws o' the member states. The %!ntinuing net e((e%t !( /an Gen) an) C!'ta i' that nati!na& %!u t' a e e4ui e) t! a""&y )i e%t&y e((e%ti/e EU &a* in the course o' litigation. Any nati!na& &a* that %!u&) hin)e the a""&i%ati!n !( EU &a* must eithe -e ign! e) ! 'et a'i)e.

G :hether the domestic is related to constitutional law is irrele ant% national court has not power to set EU law aside Thi' may -e a%%e"ta-&e *hen it %!me' t! %u't!m )utie' ! " !)u%t 'tan)a )' !in relation to which the nee) (! ha m!ni7ati!n a% !'' the mem-e 'tate' i' m! e !-/i!u' an) &e'' %!nt !/e 'ia&#?-ut *hat i( EU &a* %!&&i)e' *ith nati!na& %!n'tituti!na& &a* #(! exam"&e5 (un)amenta& ight'$? In Inte nati!na&e Han)e&'ge'e&&'%ha(t% the EC$ held that the &ega& 'tatu' !( a %!n(&i%ting nati!na& mea'u e *a' n!t e&e/ant to the 4ue'ti!n !( *hethe C!mmunity #n!* EU$ &a* 'h!u&) take " e%e)en%e.

In other words% n!t e/en a (un)amenta& u&e !( nati!na& %!n'tituti!na& &a* %!u&) -e in/!ke) t! %ha&&enge the 'u" ema%y o' )i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e EU &a*. The EC$ ruled that it was the only court that was authoriIed to set EU measures aside and that the nati!na& %!u t' ha) n! "!*e t! )! '!,

Rein(! %e the u&ing In the Simmentha&% the EC0 repeated and ein(! %e) it' ea &ie u&ing', It held that a&& nati!na& %!u t' mu't )i e%t&y an) imme)iate&y en(! %e a %&ea an) un%!n)iti!na& " !/i'i!n o' C!mmunity &a*% e/en *he e the e i' a )i e%t&y %!n(&i%ting national law and e/en i( that nati!na& &a* *a' a)!"te) a(te the ena%tment !( the " !/i'i!n !( C!mmunity &a* in 4ue'ti!n.

PARLIAMENTAR@ SO9EREIGNT@ AND THE EUROPEAN UNION U( constitutionally illGprepared to Boin the EU due to 8S principles and political ignorant to the e''ect o' Boining The United (ingdom Boined the EEC !in e''ect% a trade grouping o' eight western European states# on . $anuary ./01. The United (ingdom had needed to o ercome a number o' politiKcal and psychological !but not legal# obstacles. Its application to Boin the EEC in ./@. had been twice etoed by "rench 8resident Charles de Aaulle% who thought that "rance4s oice in world a''airs would be wea,ened by the United (ingdom4s close ties with the USA and that the +ritish go ernment was not su''iciently committed to European integration. The United (ingdom also had to o ercome its ambi alence about the EEC% which it continued to iew 'rom the perspecti e o' a 'ormer colonial power whose legal and political system was superior o er% rather than subBect to% its counterparts on the Continent.

As 'ar as the clarity o' European law was concerned% the doctrines o' direct e''ect and supremacy were already a decade old* Internationale 2andelsgesellscha't had also already been decided. Still% as !ne %!mmentat! put it% 3no country was %!n'tituti!na&&y a' i&&3 " e"a e) (! *hat *a' t! %!me a' the UK, o C! n(! ) This is a gua-&y t ue 'or se eral 'amiliar reasons. o EU &a* #e'"e%ia&&y the " in%i"&e' !( )i e%t e((e%t an) 'u" ema%y$ %!nt a)i%t' the negati/e2 &im- !( Di%ey ' (! mu&ati!n by stipulating that the e i' a -!)y !the than the C !*n in Pa &iament that has the right to !/e i)e ! 'et a'i)e the &egi'&ati!n !( Pa &iament,

o According to ;icey and :ade% Pa &iament %ann!t -in) it' 'u%%e''! , As a result% the &imitati!n' im"!'e) -y the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB; !namely% n!t t! &egi'&ate %!nt a y t! EU &a*$ a e a 'e/e e &imitati!n on the legislati e 'reedom o' &ate Pa &iament'. o UK %!u t' %ann!t annu& an A%t !( Pa &iament !n the g !un) that it %!n(&i%t' *ith 1highe 2 n! m' !be they common law or EU law#. In other words% a 'tatute " !"e &y ena%te) -y the C !*n in Pa &iament *i&& -e inte " ete) -y the %!u t' a' e" e'enting the *i&& o' 8arliament.

o "inally% ;anny Nicol argues that mem-e ' !( Pa &iament #MP'$ kne* /e y &itt&e !( the %!n'tituti!na& im"&i%ati!n' when they %!n)u%te) the )e-ate a' t! EEC mem-e 'hi", 2e claims that the "!&iti%a& natu e !( the UK %!n'tituti!n ma)e it ha )e (! "!&iti%ian' t! a'%e tain the &ega& im"&i%ati!n' o' their actions and% regarding the EEC% to appreciate 'ully the legal aspects o' membership.

Cut the'e ea'!n' 'u-+e%t t! %!nte'te)> G 8arliament still can ma,eCunma,e any law e en though supremacy o' EU law can set aside the national legislation Cut the'e "!'iti!n' are not gospel and ha e been /ig! !u'&y %!nte'te). In relation to the 'irst% Nei& Wa&ke n!te' that Di%ey ' "!'iti/e2' &im!that Pa &iament %an make ! unmake any &a* *hat'!e/e # emain' unt!u%he) -y the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;. :al,er points out that this limb is 3the true ,ernel o' 8arliamentary so ereignty and its logically prior element% since the terms o' the positi e doctrine necessarily imply the power to secure the proposition contained in the Mnegati eN side

G The limitation is only on " !%e)u a&&y on 'uture 8arliament which 8arliament accepted it In relation to the second point% Pa &iament may -e a-&e t! a%%e"t &imitati!n' ega )ing manne an) (! m by altering its composition or the procedures by which alid laws are made. o Heu't!n "or e&ample% it could reLuire a superG maBority in 8arliament or a re'erendum by the people be'ore a particular statute could be amended. A""&ie) t! the EU5 it might -e a gue) that the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB; ha' amen)e) the manne an) (! m !( 'u-'e4uent &egi'&ati!n and has " !%e)u a&&y -!un) (utu e Pa &iament', o Mit%he&&

G National court now ha e to uphold the obligation created by EU law The third point% that a %!u t %ann!t 4ue'ti!n the /a&i)ity !( an A%t !( Pa &iament% is %ha&&enge) -y an !-&igati!n un)e EU &a* t! gi/e e((e%ti/e " !te%ti!n t! ight' an) en(! %e !-&igati!n' % eate) -y EU &a*. In &a ge "a t% this 'tem' ( !m an im"! tant " !/i'i!n in the T eaty, A ti%&e D TEU Mem-e State' 'ha&& take any a"" !" iate mea'u e5 gene a& ! "a ti%u&a 5 t! en'u e (u&(i&ment !( the !-&igati!n' arising out o' the Treaties or resulting 'rom the acts o' the institutions o' the Union. The -ember States shall 'acilitate the achie ement o' the UnionHs tas,s and re'rain 'rom any measure which could Beopardise the attainment o' the UnionHs obBecti es.

G Ao t actually did aware o' constitutional e''ect on 8S% howe er% 'urther concluded there was no such erosion o' 8S 5n the 'inal point% the e i' am"&e e/i)en%e to suggest that "a &iamenta ian' in the C!mm!n' an) the L! )' )i) kn!* e&actly what they were letting themsel es in 'or?especially in relation to so ereignty% which was ob iously at sta,e.

In ./@>% Lord (ilmuir% the L! ) Chan%e&&! 5 a)/i'e) E)*a ) Heath !then Lord 8ri y Seal# in a letter that) o A)he en%e t! the E8AFBG T eaty !( R!me *!u&)5 in my !"ini!n5 a((e%t !u '!/e eignty in th ee *ay') 8arliament would be reLuired to surrender some o' its 'unctions to the organs o' the Community* the Crown would be called on to trans'er part o' its treatyGma,ing power to those organs* our courts o' law would sacri'ice some degree o' independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court o' $ustice... In the long run we shall ha e to decide whether economic 'actors reLuire us to ma,e some sacri'ice o' so ereignty..

In '"ite !( thi' a)/i%e% the g!/e nment ga/e nume !u' "!&iti%a& a''u an%e' -e(! e the Unite) King)!m a%%e)e) t! the T eaty !( R!me that 3n!thing in Ethe European Communities Act ./0=F a- i)ge' the u&timate '!/e eignty !( Pa &iament<, The go ernment produced two :hite 8apers% which insisted that there was Hno Luestion o' any erosion o' essential national so ereignty.

G There are already se eral incidents limit the 8arliament4s power% and accede to EU merely a continuing incident% howe er% 'uture parliament will not against community as it is unpro'itable -oreo er% successi e L! ) Chan%e&&! ' )enie) that Pa &iament *!u&) 'u en)e it' '!/e eignty or that the Act by which the United (ingdom acceded to the EEC would be irre ersible. The L! ) Chan%e&&! 5 L! ) Ga )ine > This United (ingdom legislation would be an e&ercise o' 8arliamentary so ereignty and Community law% e&isting and 'uture% would deri e its 'orce as law in this country 'rom it. The Community law so applied would o erride our national law so 'ar as it was inconsistent with it. Under the +ritish constitutional doctrine o' 8arliamentary so ereignty no 8arliament can preclude its successors 'rom changing the law.

It is% howe er% implicit in acceptance o' the Treaties that the United (ingdom would not only accept e&isting Community law but would also re'rain 'rom enacting 'uture legislation inconsistent with Community law. Such a restraint on our legislati e system would not be unprecedented. Ou &egi'&ati!n !(ten take' a%%!untHha' t! take a%%!untH!( t eaty !-&igati!n'* 'or e&ample the Charter o' the United Nations% NAT5% AATT% the 5ttawa Agreements and the :arsaw and AuadalaBara Con entions% which your Lordships were considering earlier this a'ternoon. .u the 5 'e/e a& A%t' !( Pa &iament ha/e e)u%e) (! a&& time /a't te it! ia& a ea' !( !u '!/e eignty?the Statute !( We'tmin'te an) the /a i!u' A%t' !( In)e"en)en%e granted to India and other countries. It is the %!ntinuing in%i)en%e !( &egi'&ati!n emanating ( !m the

C!mmunity in'tituti!n' that *!u&) -e *ith!ut " e%e)ent. There is in theory no constitutional means a ailable to us to ma,e it certain that no 'uture 8arliament would enact legislation in con'lict with Community law. It *!u&)5 h!*e/e 5 -e un" !(ita-&e t! '"e%u&ate u"!n the a%a)emi% "!''i-i&ity !( a (utu e Pa &iament ena%ting &egi'&ati!n e&pressly designed to ha e that e''ect. Some ris, o' inad ertent contradiction between United (ingdom legislation and Community law could not be ruled out* but% o' course% we must remember that i' we Boined the Community we should be ta,ing part in the preparation and enactment o' all 'uture Community law and our participation would reduce the li,elihood o' incompatibility.

Pa a)!x " !-&em') Although cannot bind the 'uture parliament% but can trans'er the legislati e competence to another body Eso no constitutional issue in ol edF% howe er% 8arliament retain so ereign. The Treaty o' Accession was also subBect to a legal challenge in ./0. !that is% be'ore it was signed# by a litigant in person called Raymond +lac,burn. 2e argued that the go ernment would be acting unlaw'ully i' it were to Boin the EEC% because the go ernment would be surGrendering 3the so ereignty o' the Crown in 8arliament4. The Court o' Appeal struc, out his action. A closer loo, at Lord ;ennings Budgment re eals that legal and political actors in the United (ingdom were ery much aware o' the conseLuences o' Boining the EEC. Notice how Lord ;enning adopts the language o' the EC$ in Costa when he says that so ereignty will% in the 'uture% be 3limited< and 3shared4.

C&a%k-u n / Att! ney Gene a& E./0.F Lord ;enning It does appear that i' this country should go into the Common -ar,et and sign the Treaty o' Rome% it means that we will ha e ta,en a step which is irre ersible. The so ereignty o' these islands will thence'orward be limited. It will not be ours alone but will be shared with others. E...F -r. +lac,burn points out that many regulations made by the European Economic Community will become automatically binding on the people o' this country) and that all the courts o' this country% including the 2ouse o' Lords% will ha e to 'ollow the decisions o' the European court in certain de'ined respects% such as the construction o' the treaty. E... F -r. +lac,burn ta,es a second point. 2e says that% i' 8arliament should implement the treaty bypassing an Act o' 8arliament 'or this purpose% it will see, to do the impossible. It will see, to bind its successors. According to the treaty% once it is signed% we are committed to it irre ocably. 5nce in the Common -ar,et% we cannot withdraw 'rom it.=J No 8arliament

can commit us% says -r. +lac,burn% to that e&tent. 2e prays in aid the principle that no 8arliament can bind its successors% and that any 8arliament can re erse any pre ious enactment. 2e re'ers to what 8ro'essor -aitland said about the Act o' Union between England and Scotland. 8ro'essor -aitland in his Constitutional 2istory o' England !./>7# said% at p. 11=) O:e ha e no irrepealable laws* all laws may be repealed by the ordinary legislature% e en the conditions under which the English and Scottish 8arliaments agreed to merge themsel es in the 8arliament o' Areat +ritain.O :e ha e all been brought up to belie e that% in legal theory% one 8arliament cannot bind another and that no Act is irre ersible. +ut legal theory does not always march alongside politiKcal reality. Ta,e the Statute o' :estminster ./1.% which ta,es away the power o' 8arliament to legislate 'or the ;ominions. Can any one imagine that 8arliament could or would re erse =J That position changed a'ter the Lisbon Treaty which% under Art. </ TEU% pro ides 'or an e&press route to withdrawal.

that StatuteP Ta,e the Acts which ha e granted independence to the ;ominions and terKritories o erseas. Can anyone imagine that 8arliament could or would re erse those laws and ta,e away their independenceP -ost clearly not. "reedom once gi en cannot be ta,en away. Legal theory must gi e way to practical politics. It is as well to remember the remar, o' Discount San,ey L.C. in +ritish Coal Corporation The (ing E./1<F A.C. <>>% <=>) OE...F the Imperial 8arliament could% as matter o' abstract law% repeal or disregard section J o' the Statute o' :estminster. +ut that is theory and has no relation to realities.HH :hat are the realities hereP I' 2er -aBestyHs -inisters sign this treaty and 8arliament enacts pro isions to implement it% I do not en isage that 8arliament would a'terwards go bac, on it and try to withdraw 'rom it. +ut% i' 8arliament should do so% then I say we will consider that e ent when it happens. :e will then say whether 8arliament can law'ully do it or not.

In e''en%e% L! ) Denning i' 'aying the (!&&!*ing, I' the '!/e eignty )!%t ine i' )e'igne) t! -e a e(&e%ti!n !( "!&iti%a& &i(e in the United (ingdom% then it mu't -e a-&e t! ex"&ain th!'e in'tan%e' in *hi%h Pa &iament a-an)!n' it' '!/e eignty !/e "a ti%u&a te it! ie', o Like A%t !( We'tmin'te 3 gi/e the &egi'&ati/e "!*e t! te it! y2' &egi'&ati/e -!)y This it does in e((e%t -y 'tating that (utu e "a &iament' *i&& n! &!nge -e a-&e t! &egi'&ate !n thei -eha&( *ith!ut thei %!n'ent.

A,9, Di%ey% too% ha) a%kn!*&e)ge) that although 8arliament could not bind its successors% it was% h!*e/e 5 a-&e t! a-)i%ate it' !/e a&& '!/e eignty?'or e&ample% by t an'(e t! an!the -!)y, o Canada Act 1982, s. 2, which provides that: 3N! A%t !( the Pa &iament !( the Unite) King)!m "a''e) a(te the C!n'tituti!n A%t5 8AI; %!me' int! (! %e 'ha&& exten) t! Cana)a a' "a t !( it' &a*2 This may ha""en in t*! 'ituati!n', o "irst% Pa &iament %an t an'(e it' +u i')i%ti!n !/e C iti'h te it! y t! an!the &egi'&atu e !as it did by e%!gni7ing the in)e"en)en%e !( I e&an) or other U( colonies% *hi%h L! ) Denning )i'%u''e' in the ext a%t#.

o Second% it %an t an'(e &egi'&ati/e %!m"eten%e !/e %e tain matte ' t! an!the -!)y?'or e&ample% an international organiIation such as the EU% the North Atlantic Treaty 5rganiIation #NATO$5 ! the Unite) Nati!n' #UN$, S!5 %!n'tituti!na&&y '"eaking% neither decoloniIation nor membership in international organiIations 'h!u&) "!'e any " !-&em', H!*e/e in -!th %a'e'5 Pa &iament 'u /i/e' the t an'(e an) #'in%e it i' '!/e eign$ %an "a'' e"ea&ing ! %!n(&i%ting &egi'&ati!n?hence the %!n'tituti!na& hea)a%he,

3 8S can be ad antages to U(G only need to pass an ordinary Act but not amend the constitution In the conte&t o' Community membership% the doctrine o' "a &iamenta y '!/e eignty *a' -!th an a)/antage an) a '!u %e !( )i((i%u&ty. :hereas !the %!unt ie' 'u%h a' Ge many an) I e&an) ha) t! amen) thei %!n'tituti!n'% the Unite) King)!m nee)e) !n&y t! "a'' a 'tan)a ) 'tatute?the European Communities Act ./0=?t! gi/e e((e%t t! C!mmunity &a*

G ECA did not clearly mentioned EU law supreme o er national law% not so clear about whether 'uture parliament can legislate against ECA !n&y a&&u)e t! the )i e%t a""&i%a-i&ity and 'u" ema%y !( C!mmunity &a* !/e UK &a* in the !-'%u e language o' the statute. Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;% ', ; Aeneral implementation o' Treaties o !=# All such rights% powers% liabilities% obligations and restrictions 'rom time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties E... F a e *ith!ut (u the ena%tment t! -e gi/en &ega& e((e%t or used in the United (ingdom E...F. o !J# E...F any ena%tment "a''e) ! t! -e "a''e) E...F 'ha&& -e %!n't ue) an) ha/e e((e%t 'u-+e%t t! the (! eg!ing " !/i'i!n' !( thi' 'e%ti!n E...F.

Se%ti!n ;#8$ i' -e't un)e 't!!) a' the gate*ay2 (! )i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e pro isions o' Community law into the U( legal order% which are to be gi/en &ega& e((e%t *ith!ut (u the ena%tment2, As L! ) Ga )ine notes% n! gua antee %!u&) -e gi/en that Pa &iament *!u&) n!t5 in the (utu e5 &egi'&ate #a)/e tent&y ! ina)/e tent&y$ in a manne %!nt a y to Community law. Cut ', ;#D$ *a' '"e%i(i%a&&y ) a(te) to a/!i) the "!''i-i&ity !( %!n(&i%t -et*een C!mmunity &a* an) 'u-'e4uent UK 'tatute',

THE RECEPTION O. COMMUNIT@ LAW C@ THE UK COURTS Court reconcile 8S and E''ect o' EU lawG o erride EU law% SI comply with EU law% disapply later statute This chapter discusses how success'ul 8arliament was in actually legislating against a conK'lict o' national and Community !now EU# law. It tells the story o' the attempts by the U( courts to get to grips with the European doctrines o' direct e''ect and supremacy% on the one hand% and the domestic doctrine o' parliamentary so ereignty% on the other. +etween ./7. and =>>7% the 2ouse o' Lords ga e almost a hundred Budgments that dealt with subKstantial European law. The cases occurred at the rate o' about one a year in the ./7>s% 'our a year in the .//>s% and 'i e a year in the =>>>s. The 2ouse o' Lords also re'erred thirtyGsi& o' those cases to the EC$?a respectable proportion o' the J1J re'erences made by all U( courts and tribunals. Although these statistics clearly re'lect the growing importance o' European law%=0 c... the attitude o' the Law Lords to the EC$ o er the 'irst 1> years o' U( membership o' the

European Union has 'or the most part been one o' loyal and uncritical compliance .. %4. 9ou should be able to see by now that the %!u t' a e in a "!tentia&&y 'en'iti/e 'ituati!n% gui)e) a' they a e -y the 'u" ema%y !( EU &a* an) the )!%t ine !( "a &iamenta y '!/e eignty, They ha/e attem"te) t! e%!n%i&e these competing constitutional demands in three ways) o by a""&ying the &ate 'tatute and !/e i)ing C!mmunity &a*: o by %!n't u%ting the &ate 'tatute in %!n(! mity *ith C!mmunity &a** and o by gi/ing e((e%t t! C!mmunity &a* -y 1)i'a""&ying2 the &ate 'tatute.

A, NATIONAL LAW O9ERRIDES COMMUNIT@ LAW -onist iewG International law automatically become part o' national law% but compromise rule national law must o erride con'lict international law although can be interpret that 8arliament intent to con'orm There is a strand o' &ega& " a%ti%e that t eat' %u't!ma y inte nati!na& &a* a' an aut!mati% "a t !( the %!mm!n &a*, This goes bac, to Wi&&iam C&a%k't!ne !.0=1G7># who opined that 3the &a* !( nati!n' E...F is here adopte) in it' (u&& extent -y the %!mm!n &a*5 an) i' he&) t! -e "a t !( the &a* !( the &an)2,

This soGcalled 3m!ni't2 /ie*% which merges "u-&i% inte nati!na& &a* *ith nati!na& &a*5 i'5 h!*e/e 5 hea/i&y %!m" !mi'e) by the u&e that nati!na& &a* mu't !/e i)e inte nati!na& &a* in the %a'e !( in%!n'i'ten%y ECheney / C!nnG% although the %!u t' *i&& a''ume "a &iamenta y intent t! %!n(! m t! it' e'ta-&i'he) " in%i"&e'. ESa&!m!n / Cu't!m' an) Ex%i'e C!mmi''i!ne 'G

Treaty ha e to be incorporated by Act and it is same status with other statute Ecan be imply repealedF as U( is dualist but not monist Interestingly% in the 'irst case in which the Court o' Appeal had to consider the Treaty o' Rome% the T eaty *a' un)e 't!!) t! ha/e -e%!me "a t !( )!me'ti% &a* 1" e%i'e&y a' i( the te m' !( the T eaty *e e %!ntaine) in an ena%tment !( the Pa &iament o' the United (ingdom4. o )e' Ga7 / .a&k' 9e ita' L! ) Denning -R% in particular% in a number o' midGtoGlate ./0>s cases% de'ined the Budiciary4s approach to Community law. In a 'urther case !decided on the same day as Application des AaI#% he (!un) that the T eaty !( R!me *a' 1"a t !( !u &a*, It i' e4ua& in (! %e t! any 'tatute2, o HP Cu&me Lt) / 0, C!&&inge SA [1974] o That mean i( -e "a t !( !u &a* then PS %an ai'e)

As a result% it ha) &!'t it' inte nati!na& %ha a%te % was 'ormally n! )i((e ent ( !m any !the A%t !( Pa &iament5 an) %!u&) -e !/e u&e) un)e the )!%t ine !( im"&ie) e"ea&. These words !-/i!u'&y 'tem ( !m the ea &y )ay' !( C!mmunity mem-e 'hi" during which the t ue %ha a%te !( C!mmunity &a* *a' n!t yet a"" e%iate) -y the +u)i%ia y, In any e ent% th!ugh5 the UK %!n'tituti!n i' n!t 1m!ni't25 -ut 1)ua&i't2% meaning that "u-&i% inte nati!na& &a* mu't (i 't -e in%! "! ate) -y an A%t !( Pa &iament int! nati!na& &a* be'ore it can be in o,ed in the courts. Indeed% in an article 'rom ./@=% Keenan (a&'e&y a''ume) that C itain5 u"!n +!ining the C!mmunitie'5 *!u&) ha/e t! 1in%! "! ate2 the T eaty !( R!me int! Eng&i'h &a*,

[Dualism isnt correct regard to ! law" EU &a* %ann!t -e ega )e) a' 1in%! "! ate)2 ! a' )e&egate) &egi'&ati!n due to it is not incorporated by ECA Edi''erent 'rom other international lawF% and incorporation does not ta,e into account the 3direct e''ect4 and delegated legislation cannot supreme o er primary legislation +ut )ua&i'm i' n!t the %! e%t *ay to concei e EU law either. The suggestion that C!mmunity #n!* EU$ &a* *!u&) -e%!me "a t !( C iti'h &a* either th !ugh in%! "! ati!n or )e&egati!n !li,e public international law# i' * !ng 'or three reasons. .i 't% 'rom a national constitutional perspecti e% EU &a* i' n!t t an'(! me) int! nati!na& &a* in the 'ame *ay in *hi%h "u-&i% inte nati!na& &a* i'* on the contrary% the original t eatie' are detached 'rom general international law and a e n!t in%! "! ate) int! nati!na& &a* -y the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;,

Se%!n)% the in%! "! ati!n m!)e& )!e' n!t take a%%!unt !( the nee) (! EU &a* t! " !)u%e )i e%t e((e%t be'ore it can be en'orced by a national court. Thi )% the )e&egati!n m!)e& !according to which directly e''ecti e EU law is a subordinate instrument o' the national legal system# %ann!t %!exi't *ith the 'u" ema%y !( EU &a*.

G Incorporation and delegation idea is used to preser e 8S +oth in%! "! ati!n an) )e&egati!n are " !)u%t' !( Di%eyan '!/e eignty the! y. As such% they ten) t! ema'%u&ate the i)ea !( EU &a* a' a ne* an) )i'tin%t &ega& ! )e 'or the -ene(it !( *hi%h the mem-e 'tate' ha/e /!&unta i&y 'hi(te) the -!un)a ie' !( thei '!/e eign "!*e ',

G -a,e statutory recognition o' EU law so that 8S can be uphold% later con'lict Act can imply repeal the pre ious one It should be clear that EU &a* "!''e''e' an !/e i)ing 4ua&ity that inte nati!na& &a* )!e' n!t ha/e and which Di%eyan %!n'tituti!na& the! y )!e' n!t 'u""! t, This ex"&ain' *hy L! ) Denning had initia&&y ma)e the im"a%t !( C!mmunity &a* %!n)iti!na& u"!n 'tatut! y e%!gniti!n% which% in tu n5 ea''e te) the '!/e eignty !( Pa &iament, In 'ituati!n' in *hi%h a &ate 'tatute %!n(&i%te) *ith an ea &ie 'tatute% then a proper application o' the )!%t ine !( im"&ie) e"ea& *!u&) !n&y e4ui e %!n'i)e ati!n !( the &ate 'tatute ega )&e'' !( the 'act that the earlier norm is the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;,

Court case) Ignore the EU treaty by uphold the domestic statute This is what happened in .e&ix't!*e D!%k' Rai&*ay C! / C iti'h T an'"! t D!%k' C!a ) in *hi%h an A%t !( Pa &iament *a' in %&ea %!n(&i%t *ith A t, IJ EEC !now Art. .>= T"EU# L! ) Denning eite ate) hi' ea &ie mant a #<A ti%&e IJ i' n!* "a t !( Eng&i'h &a*<$ and% ha ing e4ua&i7e) A%t' !( Pa &iament with the Treaty o' Rome% a''e te) the u&timate auth! ity !( Pa &iament) o HIt seems to me that !n%e the Ci&& i' "a''e) -y Pa &iament and -e%!me' a Statute% that will )i'"!'e !( a&& thi' )i'%u''i!n a-!ut the T eaty, o These C!u t' *i&& then ha/e t! a-i)e -y the Statute *ith!ut ega ) t! the T eaty at a&&.4

This is a %&ea %a'e o' nati!na& &a* !/e i)ing C!mmunity &a* in the e/ent !( %!n(&i%t, L! ) Di"&!%k% '"eaking ext a+u)i%ia&&y and a 'ew years before the eli!sto"e case% had made a similar point. L! ) Di"&!%k> o It is a conseLuence o' the constitutional doctrine o' the supremacy o' the Queen in 8arliament that i' a subseLuent Act o' 8arliament were passed that was in con'lict with any pro ision o' the Treaty which is o' direct application in the member states E... F the %!u t' !( the Unite) King)!m *!u&) -e -!un) t! gi/e e((e%t t! the A%t !( Pa &iament n!t*ith'tan)ing any %!n(&i%t,

The .e&ix't!*e %a'e i' a 'ta t&ing exam"&e !( Di%eyan ! th!)!xy in the Eu !"ean %!ntext, It suggests that any %!n(&i%t -et*een an ea &ie n! m #in the'e %a'e'% always the #uropean Communities Act 1972# and a later A%t !( Pa &iament ha' t! -e e'!&/e) in (a/!u !( the &atte , According to -urray 2unt% the case was <an i'!&ate) exam"&e !( !ut ight +u)i%ia& e+e%ti!n !( the 'u" ema%y !( C!mmunity &a*25 although?as Lord ;iploc,4s comment suggests?not an isolated iew at the time.

Court change their iew) RecogniIe EU supremacy and claim to be sel'G determine the line Ene&t sectionsF A mere two years a'ter "eli&stowe% howe er% L! ) Denning *a' a& ea)y e/i'ing hi' /ie*' in Shie&)' / E C!!m-e' !2oldings# Ltd. L! ) Denning e%!gni7e' 'or the 'irst time that )e%i'i!n' an) !"ini!n' !( the EC0 !and% in this case% the )!%t ine' !( )i e%t e((e%t an) 'u" ema%y$ were -in)ing !n nati!na& %!u t' by irtue o' s. 1!.# o' the European Communities Act ./0=.

L! ) Denning> EWGhene/e the e i' a %!n(&i%t ! in%!n'i'ten%y between the law contained in an article o' the Treaty and the law contained in the internal law o' one o' the member states% whether passed be'ore or a'ter Boining the Community% it says that in any such e ent the &a* !( the C!mmunity 'ha&& " e/ai& !/e that !( the inte na& &a* !( the mem-e 'tate o E2e then toyed with imagery that has become a 'amous part o' European law mythology in the U(.F All this shows that the 'lowing tide o' Community law is coming in 'ast. It has not stopped at highGwater mar,. It has bro,en the dy,es and the ban,s. It has submerged the surrounding land. So much so that we ha e to &ea n t! -e%!me am"hi-i!u' i' we wish to ,eep our heads abo e water.

The 'ollowing sections discuss h!* the UK %!u t' &ea ne) t! -e%!me 1am"hi-i!u'2?that is% h!* they &ea ne) t! 'tee a %!u 'e -et*een the 'a(e an) ) y &an)' !( nati!na& &a* an) the )ee" an) unkn!*n *ate ' !( EU &a*,

C, THE CONSTRUCTION APPROACH Statut! y %!n't u%ti!n -a'e) !n the ECA 8AB; 3 U( court is not allowed to stretch the words o' an Act o' 8arliament through interpretation or construction% the Treaty cannot a''ect the meaning o' national law% and there'ore cannot be used as an aid to statutory construction. Instead% the court should re'er the case to the EC$% whereupon national legislation is adBudged either to be compatible or incompatible with the Treaty. The second approach that the courts ha e used to )ea& *ith %!n(&i%ting C!mmunity &a* i' that !( 'tatut! y inte " etati!n. In Ma%a thy2' / Smith% -rs Smith argued that she had been discriminated against on the grounds o' gender when she too, up a stoc,room ,eeper4s position at R<> per wee,% replacing a male eLui alent who had le't his Bob with the employer more than 'our months

be'ore she was appointed and who had been paid R@> per wee,. In proceedings be'ore an industrial tribunal% she claimed that she was entitled to eLual pay under s. .!=# o' the ELual 8ay Act ./0>% as amended by the Se& ;iscrimination Act ./0<. 2er employers argued that s. .!=# applied only in cases in which a man and a woman were employed by the same employer on li,e wor, at the same time. -rs Smith argued that s. .!=# should be interpreted so as to gi e e''ect to the principle contained in Art. .<0 T"EU that men and women should recei e eLual pay 'or eLual wor,% and that this pro ision also co ered cases in which a woman was employed on li,e wor, in succession to a man. Interestingly% the EC$ had already decided that Art. .<0 T"EU was directly e''ecti eJ. and so could be relied on by -rs Smith be'ore the national court. -acarthyHs Smith E./0/F 1 All ER 1=<%11.GJ* 11JG@ Lawton L$ This case started by raising what seemed to the parties to be an issue o' 'act% namely whether -rs Smith had been employed on li,e wor, o' a broadly similar nature to that done by

her immediate predecessor% a -r -cCullough% in the Bob o' ta,ing charge o' the employerHs stoc,room. It will end as a case o' historical interest as being the 'irst to be sent by this court to the E... F European Court o' $ustice 'or an opinion on the construction and application o' an article o' the EEC Treaty. "urther it may be o' constitutional importance i' the opinion when gi en con'licts with the clear terms o' a statute. E... F I E...F start with the issues as I see them. They are these) 'irst% is the meaning o' the relKe ant parts o' the ELual 8ay Act ./0> as amended% !hereina'ter re'erred to as The ActH# clearP I' it is% what is itP Secondly% i' it is not clear% how is the Act to be construedP Thirdly% is the J. Case J1C0< ;e'renne SA+ENA E./0@F ECR J<<. meaning o' EArt. .<0 T"EUF o' the EEC Treaty clearP I' it is% what is itP "ourthly% i' they clear meaning con'licts with the clear meaning o' the rele ant parts o' the Act% what should this court doP "i'thly% i' the meaning o' EArt. .<0 T"EUF is not clear% what should this court doP The Act en isages that womenHs contracts o' employment shall contain an eLuality clause) see s .!.#.

Such a clause is to contain pro isions ha ing speci'ied e''ects) see s .!=#. In my Budgment the grammatical construction o' s .!=# is consistent only with a comparison between a woman and a man in the same employment at the same time. The words% by the tenses used% loo, to the present and the 'uture but not to the past. They are inconsistent with a comparison between a woman and a man% no longer in the same employment% who was doing her Bob be'ore she got it. E... F As the meaning o' the words used in s . !=# and !J# is clear% and no ambiguity% whether patKent or latent% lur,s within them% under our rules 'or the construction o' Acts o' 8arliament the statutory intention must be 'ound within those words. It is not permissible to read into the statute words which are not there or to loo, outside the Act% as counsel 'or -rs Smith in ited us to do and 8hillips $ did% to read the words used in a sense other than that o' their ordinary meaning. Counsel 'or -rs Smith submitted that the Act should be read in harmony with the Se& ;iscrimination Act ./0<* but that Act% as s @!@# e&pressly pro ides% Hdoes not apply to bene'its consisting o' the payment o' money when the

pro ision o' those bene'its is reguKlated by the womanHs contract o' employmentH. It 'ollows% so it seems to me% to be irrele ant that the Se& ;iscrimination Act ./0< does allow a comparison between the bene'its% other than those consisting o' money% which a man got when doing a Bob and which his succesKsor% a woman% did not get when doing the same Bob% whereas under the Act relied on by -rs Smith in this case comparison in relation to pay is outside it. :hat led 8hillips $ to construe s .!=# and !J# o' the Act so as to allow such a comparison were the pro isions o' EArt. .<0 T"EUF E...F. In this court counsel on both sides ha e submitKted that the meaning o' this article is clear* but they ha e di''ered as to what that meaning is. Counsel 'or -rs Smith has submitted that under EArt. .<0 T"EUF a woman should recei e the same pay as a man she 'ollows in a Bob% unless there are 'actors% other than se& discriminaKtion% which Busti'y the di''erence. I' this be right% EArt. .<0 T"EUF says something di''erent 'rom what I adBudge to be the plain% unambiguous meaning o' s . !=# and !J# o' the Act. :hen an Act and an article o' the EEC Treaty are in

con'lict% which should this court 'ollowP Counsel 'or -rs Smith says the article% because s = o' the European Communities Act ./0= so proK ides% as does European Community law. Thus in AmminstraIione delle "inanIe dello Stato Simmenthal SpA !E./07F ECR @=/ at @1># the European Court o' $ustice adBudged HA national court which is called upon% within the limits o' its Burisdiction% to apply pro isions o' Community law is under a duty to gi e 'ull e''ect to those pro isions% i' necessary re'using o' its own motion to apply any con'licting pro ision o' national legislation% e en i' adopted subseLuently% and it is not necessary 'or the court to reLuest or await the prior setting aside o' such pro isions by legislati e or other constitutional meansC Counsel 'or the employers submitted that EArt .<0 T"EUF en isages that men and women wor,ing side by side 'or the same employer and doing li,e or broadly similar wor, should be paid the same. 2e 'urther submitted that the opening words o' the article% HEach -ember State shall E...F ensure and subseLuently maintain E...FH% en isages that the member states should enact their own legislation to

ensure and maintain the application o' the principle that men and women should recei e eLual pay 'or eLual wor,. 2e argued that the United (ingdom had done so by amending the ELual 8ay Act ./0> and that i' the Commission o' the European Communities E...F thought that the United (ingdom had not done enough in this respect% it was not 'or this court to ignore what it had done by way o' legislation but 'or the European Court o' $ustice to adBudge whether the United (ingdom had discharged its Treaty obligations. E... F In my opinion there is some doubt whether EArt. .<0 T"EUF applies to the 'acts o' this case. :e cannot% as counsel 'or the employers submitted% ignore EArt. .<0 T"EUF and apply what I consider to be the plain meaning o' the Act. The problem o' the implementation o' EArt. .<0 T"EUF is not one 'or the EEC Commission to ta,e up with the go ernment o' the United (ingdom and Northern Ireland% as counsel 'or the employers submitted it was. EArt. .<0 T"EUF gi es rise to indi idual rights which our courts must protect. E... F +eing in doubt as to the ambit o' EArt. .<0 T"EUF and being under an

obligation arising both 'rom the decisions o' the European Court o' $ustice... and s = o' the European Communities Act ./0= to apply that article in our courts% it seems to me that this is a situation to which EArt. =@0 T"EUF applies. I consider that a decision is necessary as to the construction o' EArt. .<0 T"EUF and I would reLuest the European Court o' $ustice to gi e a ruling on it. CummingG+ruce L$ I agree with the reasoning and conclusion o' Lawton L$. The 'irst Luestion is) what does s .!=#!a#!i# o' the ELual 8ay Act ./0> as amended by the Se& ;iscrimination Act ./0< meanP This Luestion has to be answered by applying the ordinary rules o' construction which ha e been established in this country. 5ne such rule is that words in an Act o' 8arliament ha e their natural and ordinary meaning unless such a meaning is mani'estly inconsistent with the conte&t% or gi es rise to such absurdity or inBustice that 8arliament cannot ha e intended such meaning. E...F I am le't so 'ar wholly uncon inced that there is any reason 'or gi ing s . !=#!a#!i# a meaning other than that which at 'irst impression I thought

was the ordinary and natural meaning o' the words. E...F Li,e Lawton L$ I do not 'ind it easy to discern the application o' EArt. .<0 T"EUF to the cirKcumstances contemplated by s . !=#!a#!i# o' the English statute ha ing regard to my construcKtion thereo'. I ta,e the iew that EArt. .<0 T"EUF% which e&presses a general principle% may be per'ectly consistent with the English legislation as I construe it. +ut I am not sure about that% and there'ore agree that the court at Lu&embourg should gi e an authoritati e answer to that Luestion. Secondly% I do not thin, that it is permissible% as an aid to construction% to loo, at the terms o' the Treaty. I' the terms o' the Treaty are adBudged in Lu&embourg to be inconsistent with the pro isions o' the ELual 8ay Act ./0>% European Baw will pre ail o er that municipal legislation. +ut such a Budgment in Lu&embourg cannot a''ect the meaning o' the English statute.

The ma+! ity !( the C!u t !Lawton and CummingG+ruce L$$# reasoned that the "&ain meaning !( the 'tatut! y &anguage *a' !( " ima y im"! tan%e, "or the (i 't time% a UK %!u t ha) (!un) that it *a' un)e a )uty t! gi/e " i! ity t! a )i e%t&y e((e%ti/e " !/i'i!n !( C!mmunity &a* that stood in con'lict with an Act o' 8arliament. It %&ea &y e%!gni7e) that A t, 8FB T.EU %!u&) n!t -e ign! e)% because it ga/e i'e t! in)i/i)ua& ight' that e4ui e) " !te%ti!n.

The C!u t !( A""ea&' em"ha'i' i' !n the u&e' !( %!n't u%ti!n in the approach that it too,. o The nati!na& C!u t inte " et' nati!na& &a* a%%! )ing t! the t a)iti!na& u&e' o' statutory construction. o It %!n'i)e ' C!mmunity &a* 'e"a ate&y. o I' the meaning !( C!mmunity &a* i' un%&ea % the %! e%t " !%e)u e i' t! e(e the %a'e t! the EC0 un)e A t, ;JB T.EU and not to secondGguess the EC$ s own rules o' construction. o I( the e i' a %!n(&i%t5 C!mmunity &a* " e/ai&' !/e nati!na& &a*.

G 8S not be compromised due to still uphold the intention o' 8arliament in enacting ECA Cy gi/ing " i! ity t! C!mmunity &a* in case o' con'lict% )!e' the C!u t !( A""ea& a&'! en)! 'e the /ie* that ', ;#D$ !( the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB; ha' -een ent en%he)% and that the )!%t ine !( "a &iamenta y '!/e eignty ha' -een %!m" !mi'e)? M, Hunt> 9et signi'icantly% though unsurprisingly% the maBority did not consider their conclusion to in ol e any compromise o' 8arliamentary so ereignty. "or them% the reconciliation with so ereignty theory was straight'orward. .a ( !m 'u-/e ting the '!/e eignty !( Pa &iament% they -e&ie/e) that they *e e in (a%t a""&ying it5 -e%au'e Pa &iament% <-y it' !*n a%t in the exe %i'e !( it' '!/e eign "!*e '<% has ena%te) that Eu !"ean

C!mmunity &a* i' t! -e gi/en )i e%t e((e%t !s. =!.## and a%%! )e) 'u" ema%y #', ;#D$$, It 'ollowed that the C!u t *a' me e&y im"&ementing the *i&& !( Pa &iament ex" e''e) in the 8AB; A%t% in the a-'en%e !( any in)i%ati!n in the 'u-'e4uent A%t that Pa &iament ha) %hange) it' min),

G Im"! tant )i''enting E&ate %a'e (!&&!* thi' a"" !a%hG> courts should initially loo, to the Treaty as an aid to statutory construction and try to render national law compatible with EU law. I' that attempt 'ails% then% by irtue o' s. =!.# and !J# o' the European Communities Act ./0=% the courts need to gi e priority to the o erriding 'orce< o' EU law. -acarthys is% howe er% not emem-e e) 'or the reasoning o' the maBority% -ut (! L! ) Denning' )i''ent, Hi' )i''ent *a' g !un)- eaking -e%au'e o' the inn!/ati/e *ay in *hi%h hi' 'tatut! y inte " etati!n 'ta te) *ith C!mmunity &a* an) *! ke) it' *ay )!*n*a )' t! nati!na& &a*, Late %a'e' *e e t! (!&&!* L! ) Denning2' a"" !a%h, -acarthys Smith E./0/F 1 All ER 1=<% 1=7G1. Lord ;enning !dissenting# The EEC Treaty

EArt. .<0 T"EUF says) HEach -ember State shall during the 'irst stage ensure and subseLuently maintain the appliKcation o' the principle that men and women should recei e eLual pay 'or eLual wor, E...FH That principle is part o' our English law. It is directly applicable in England. So much so that% e en i' we had not passed any legislation on the point% our courts would ha e been bound to gi e e''ect to EArt. .<0 T"EUF. I' a woman had complained to an industrial tribunal or to the 2igh Court and pro ed that she was not recei ing eLual pay with a man 'or eLual wor,% both the industrial tribunal and the court would ha e been bound to gi e her redress) Esee ;e'renne SA+ ENAF. In point o' 'act% howe er% the United (ingdom has passed legislation with the intention o' gi ing e''ect to the principle o' eLualHpay Ein Art. .<0 T"EUF. It has done it by the Se& ;iscrimination Act ./0< and in particular by s 7 o' that Act amending s . o' the ELual 8ay Act ./0>. No doubt the 8arliament o' the United (ingdom thin,s that it has 'ul'illed its obligations under the Treaty. +ut the European Commission ta,e a di''erent iew. They thin, that our statutes do not go 'ar enough.

:hat then is the positionP Suppose that England passes legislation which contra enes the principle contained in the Treaty% or which is inconsistent with it% or 'ails properly to implement it. There is no doubt that the European Commission can report the United (ingdom to the European Court o' $ustice* and that court can reLuire the United (ingdom to ta,e the necessary measures to implement EArt. .<0 T"EUF. That is shown by EArt. =<7 T"EUF and EArt. =@>T"EUF E...F. It is unnecessary% howe er% 'or these courts to wait until all that procedure has been gone through. Un)e ' ;#8$ an) #D$ !( the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB; the principles laid down in the T eaty a e <*ith!ut (u the ena%tment< t! -e gi/en &ega& e((e%t in the United (ingdom* and ha/e " i! ity !/e <any ena%tment "a''e) ! t! -e "a''e)< -y !u Pa &iament So we a e entit&e) an) I think -!un) t! &!!k at EA t, 8FB T.EUG because it i' )i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e here* and also any directi e which is

directly applicable here) see Dan ;uyn 2ome 5''ice !No% =#. :e should% I thin,% loo, to see what those pro isions reLuire about eLual pay 'or men and women. Then *e 'h!u&) &!!k at !u !*n &egi'&ati!n on the point% gi/ing it5 !( %!u 'e5 (u&& (aith an) % e)it5 a''uming that it )!e' (u&&y %!m"&y *ith the !-&igati!n' un)e the T eaty, In %!n't uing !u 'tatute% we are entitled to &!!k t! the T eaty a' an ai) t! it' %!n't u%ti!n* but not only as an aid -ut a' an !/e i)ing (! %e, I' !n %&!'e in/e'tigati!n it 'h!u&) a""ea that !u &egi'&ati!n i' )e(i%ient or is inconsistent with Community law by some o ersight o' our dra'tsmen then it i' !u -!un)en )uty t! gi/e " i! ity t! C!mmunity &a*,

Su%h i' the e'u&t !( ' ;#8$ an) #D$ !( the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;, I pause here% howe er% to ma,e one obser ation on a constitutional point. Thus 'ar I ha e assumed that our 8arliament% whene er it passes legislation% intends to 'ul'il its obligations under the Treaty. I' the time should come when our 8arliament deliberately passes an Act with the intention o' repudiating the Treaty or any pro ision in it or intentionally o' acting inconsistently with it and says so in e&press terms then I should ha e thought that it would be the duty o' our courts to 'ollow the statute o' our 8arliament. I do not howe er en isage any such situation. E...F EArticle .<0 T"EUF EArticle .<0 T"EUF is 'ramed in European 'ashion. It enunciates a broad general principle and lea es the Budges to wor, out the details. In contrast the ELual 8ay Act is 'ramed in English 'ashion. It states no general principle but lays down detailed speci'ic rules 'or the courts to apply !which% so some hold% the courts must interpret according to the actual language used# without resort to

considerations o' policy or principle. E... F In my opinion E...F EArt. .<0 T"EUF is reasonably clear on the point* it applies not only to cases where the woman is employed on li,e wor, at the same time with a man in the same employment% but also when she is employed on li,e wor, in succession to a man% that is% in such close succession that it is Bust and reasonable to ma,e a comparison between them. The ELual 8ay Act ./0> Now I turn to our Act to see i' that principle has been carried 'orward into our legislation. The rele ant part o' this Act was passed not in ./0> but in ./0< by s 7 o' the Se& ;iscrimination Act ./0<. E...F Now stand bac, and loo, at the statutes as a single code intended to eliminate discriminaKtion against women. They should be a harmonious whole. To achie e this harmony s .!=# !a#!i# o' the ELual 8ay Act should not be read as i' it included the words Hat the same timeH. It should be interpreted so as to apply to cases where a woman is employed at the same Bob doing the same wor, Hin successionH to a man. Combining the two pro isions

+y so construing the Treaty and the statutes together we reach this ery desirable result) it means that there is no con'lict between EArt. .<0 T"EUF and s . !=# o' the ELual 8ay Act* and that this country will ha e 'ul'illed its obligations under the Treaty. E... F So I would hold% in agreement with 8hillips $% that both under the Treaty and under the statutes a woman should recei e eLual pay 'or eLual wor,% not only when she is employed at the same time as the man% but also when she is employed at the same Bob in succession to him% that is% in such close succession that it is Bust and reasonable to ma,e a comparison between them.

According to Lord ;enning% a court in a case such as Ma%a thy2' 'h!u&) %!n't u%t ! inte " et nati!na& &a* -y> o examining the e&e/ant " in%i"&e' in the T eaty that are )i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e* o taking int! a%%!unt any )i e%ti/e that may-e )i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e* and o &!!king at the e&e/ant nati!na& &egi'&ati!n5 gi/ing it 1(u&& (aith an) % e)it2% and a''uming that it (u&&y %!m"&ie' *ith the T eaty !-&igati!n', L! ) Denning )i''ente) ( !m the ma+! ity iew that C!mmunity &a* %!u&) 'u"e 'e)e UK &a* in the 'en'e !( 'u""&anting it and rendering it oid* instead% C!mmunity &a* *a' me e&y an ai) t! the %!n't u%ti!n !( nati!na& &a*,

3 ; *ay' !( Denning2' ea'!ning> still adopt domestic SI but show disobedience notion on the other side due to in ent special 'orm SI Gi/en that ', ;#D$ !( the Eu !"ean Communities Act ./0= touches upon the issue o' supremacy% L! ) Denning2' %!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h i'5 !n the !ne han)5 an att a%ti/e *ay !( gi/ing e((e%t t! EU &a*) it is a )!me'ti% " in%i"&e !( 'tatut! y inte " etati!n !!te) in )!me'ti% &a* ! athe than an EC0 im"!'iti!n in the (! m !( )i e%t e((e%t an) 'u" ema%y#. o The *! )' 1'ha&& -e %!n't ue) an) ha/e e((e%t< in ', ;#D$ mean neithe that Pa &iament inten)e) 'tatute' t! !/e i)e EU &a*% n! that the han)' !( (utu e "a &iament' a e 'u-'tanti/e&y tie). o In%!n'i'ten%ie' a e e'!&/e) in (a/!u !( EU &a* un&e'' Pa &iament '"e&&' !ut

ex" e''&y that it wishes to legislate contrary to EU law. On the !the han)% Lord ;enning4s reasoning is also %ha a%te i7e) -y a )eg ee !( 'u-/e 'i/ene'' , A&&an> Lord ;enningHs position may be regarded as lying at the borderline between creati e interpretation and #n!ti!na&$ )i'!-e)ien%e, Di e%t&y a""&i%a-&e C!mmunity &a* *!u&) !/e i)e an in%!n'i'tent A%t o' 8arliament ex%e"t *he e Pa &iament ha) ex" e''&y 'ti"u&ate) 'or the opposite result.

He natu a&&y a''ume) Pa &iament<' %!ntinuing% underlying intenti!n t! (u&(i& it' !-&igati!n' un)e the T eaty> o <I( the time should come when our Pa &iament )e&i-e ate&y "a''e' an A%t *ith the intenti!n !( e"u)iating the T eaty or any pro ision in it or E... F o' acting inconsistently with it and says so in e&press terms then E... F it *!u&) -e the )uty !( !u %!u t' t! (!&&!* the 'tatute !( !u Pa &iament,< The result is to establish a " e'um"ti!n !( &egi'&ati/e intent *hi%h %an -e )e(eate) !n&y -y the a)!"ti!n !( ex"&i%it 'tatut! y &anguage in rebuttal. Thi' i' in e((e%t to im"!'e a '"e%ia& e4ui ement !( (! m?i' not o' Hmanner and 'ormH?(! a "a ti%u&a "u "!'e* and the distinction -et*een the a""&i%ati!n !( 'tatute an) it' inte " etati!n ha' a&& -ut )i'a""ea e).

o $t mean no" no need any %$ but only apply statute accordingly

G ;ominant cases use ;enning4s reasoning) but gi e rise to no el purposi e approach which may depart 'rom strict and literal application o' the words The n!/e&ty !( L! ) Denning' )i''ent lay in the acceptance o' Community law as part o' the nationally alid sources o' law. The C!u t *a' thu' gi/en a %h!i%e !( '!u %e' *ith *hi%h t! e'!&/e the %!n(&i%t *ith!ut (i 't ha/ing t! e(e the %a'e t! the EC0, Since then% the )!minant &ine !( %a'e' ha' u'e) 't !ng " in%i"&e' !( %!n't u%ti!n. In Pi%k't!ne / . eeman' and in Lit'te / .! th D y D!%k the H!u'e !( L! )' *a' n!t " e"a e) t! a"" !/e a &ite a& inte " etati!n o' statutory instruments and was unanimous in holding that words ought to be implied into national law in order to achie e the purpose o' gi ing e''ect to the EC directi e.

The employer in Pi%k't!ne employed both men and women as warehouse operati es% and as chec,er warehouse operati es. The applicants were 'i e 'emale 3warehouse operati es4% who claimed that they were entitled to eLual pay with a male chec,er warehouse operati e4 employed by the same mail order company% on the basis that their wor, was o' eLual alue within the meaning o' s. l!=#!c# o' the ELual 8ay Act ./0>% as amended by the ELual 8ay !Amendment# Regulations ./71. The dra't Regulations o' ./71 were presented to 8arliament as gi ing 'ull e''ect to the EC$4s decision in Commission U(.JJ The employer argued that a woman warehouse operati e was employed 'or li,e wor, to that o' the male warehouse operati es% so that a claim under s. l!=#!c# o' the ./0> Act was barred. This was a literal interpretation o' the ./0> Act. The employer succeeded be'ore the industrial tribunal and the Employment Appeals Tribunal !EAT#. The Court o' Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that% in the circumstances% the 'emale employees were entitled to pursue eLual alue claims under Art. .<0 T"EU% and the

2ouse o' Lords disKmissed the employer4s appeal. 8ic,stone "reemans 8ic E./7/F AC @@%...G.=%.=1%.=<G7 Lord (eith The opposite result would lea e a large gap in the eLual wor, pro ision% enabling an employer to e ade it by employing one to,en man on the same wor, as a group o' potential women claimants who were deliberately paid less than a group o' men employed on wor, o' eLual alue with that o' the women. This would mean that the United (ingdom had 'ailed yet again 'ully to implement its obligations under EArt. .<0 T"EUF and the ELual 8ay ;irecti e% and had not gi en 'ull e''ect to ECommission U(F It is plain that 8arliament cannot possibly ha e intended such a 'ailure. The dra't Regulations o' ./71 were presented to 8arliament as gi ing 'ull e''ect to the decision in Luestion. The dra't Regulations were not subBect to the 8arliamentary process o' consideration and amendment in Committee% as a +ill would ha e been. In these circumstances and in the conte&t o' section = o' the European Communities Act ./0= I consider it to be entirely legitimate

'or the purpose o' ascertaining the intention o' 8arliament to ta,e into account the terms in which the dra't was presented by the responKsible -inister and which 'ormed the basis o' its acceptance. E... F There was no suggestion that the e&clusionary words in paragraph !c# were intended to applyG in any other situation than where the man selected by a woman complainant 'or comparison was one in relation to whose wor, paragraph !a# or paragraph !b# applied. It may be that% in order to con'ine the words in Luestion to that situation% some necessary implication 'alls to be made into their literal meaning. The precise terms o' that implication do not seem to me to matter. It is J= E./7/F AC @@. J1 E.//>F . AC <J@. JJ Case @.C7. E./7=F ICR <07. su''icient to say that the words must be construed purposi ely in order to gi e e''ect to the mani'est broad intention o' the ma,er o' the Regulations and o' 8arliament. I would there'ore reBect the employersH argument. Lord Templeman In ;u,e Reliance Systems Ltd% E./77F A.C. @.7 this 2ouse declined

to distort the construcKtion o' an Act o' 8arliament which was not dra'ted to gi e e''ect to a ;irecti e and which was not capable o' complying with the ;irecti e as subseLuently construed by the European Court o' $ustice. In the present case I can see no di''iculty in construing the Regulations o' ./71 in a way which gi es e''ect to the declared intention o' the Ao ernment o' the United (ingdom responsible 'or dra'ting the Regulations and is consistent with the obBects o' the E.E.C. Treaty% the pro isions o' the ELual 8ay ;irecti e and the rulings o' the European Court o' $ustice. I would dismiss the appeal. Lord 5li er A construction which permits the section to operate as a proper 'ul'ilment o' the United (ingdomHs obligation under the Treaty in ol es not so much doing iolence to the language o' the section as 'illing a gap by an implication which arises% not 'rom the words used% but 'rom the mani'est purpose o' the Act and the mischie' it was intended to remedy. The Luestion is whether that can be Busti'ied by the necessity G indeed the obligation G to apply a purposi e construction which will implement the United (ingdomHs obligations under the Treaty. E... F

It must E...F be recognised that so to construe a pro ision which% on its 'ace% is unamKbiguous in ol es a departure 'rom a number o' wellG established rules o' construction. The intention o' 8arliament has% it is said% to be ascertained 'rom the words which it has used and those words are to be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning. The 'act that a statute is passed to gi e e''ect to an international treaty does not% o' itsel'% enable the treaty to be re'erred to in order to construe the words used other than in their plain and unambiguous sense. -oreo er% e en in the case o' ambiguity% what is said in 8arliament in the course o' the passage o' the +ill% cannot ordinarily be re'erred to assist in construction. I thin,% howe er% that it has also to be recognised that a statute which is passed in order to gi e e''ect to the United (ingdomHs obligations under the E.E.C. Treaty 'alls into a special category and it does so because% unli,e other treaty obligations% those obligations ha e% in e''ect% been incorporated into English law by the European Communities Act ./0=. E... F E... F I am satis'ied that the words o' section . !=#!c#% whilst on the 'ace o' them uneLui ocal% are reasonably

capable o' bearing a meaning which will not put the United (ingdom in breach o' its Treaty obligations. This conclusion is Busti'ied% in my Budgment% by the mani'est purpose o' the legislation% by its history% and by the compulsi e pro ision o' section =!J# o' the Act o' ./0=. It is com'orting indeed to 'ind% 'rom the statement made by the -inister to which my noble and learned 'riend has re'erred% that this construction does in 'act con'orm not only with what clearly was the parliamentary intention but also with what was stated to be the parKliamentary intention. I do not% howe er% thin, that it is necessary to rely upon this% since the conclusion is% in my Budgment% amply Busti'ied by the other 'actors which I ha e mentioned. "or these reasons and 'or those gi en by my noble and learned 'riend% Lord Templeman% I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.

Pi%k't!ne / . eeman' shows a ery assured L! ) Keith (u&&y e+e%ting the employer s na !* an) &ite a& inte " etati!n% and 'ully em- a%ing the "u "!'i/e %!n't u%ti!n !( the nati!na& &a* in 4ue'ti!n, In doing so% he o''ers little guidance as to how e&actly the literal meaning o' the statutory words are to be modi'ied. A%%! )ing t! L! ) Keith% it *a' 'u((i%ient t! %!n't ue the *! )' "u "!'i/e&y in ! )e t! gi/e (u&& e((e%t t! the 8AI= Regu&ati!n' an) Pa &iament' intenti!n',

L! ) O&i/e 2' ea'!ning% in %!nt a't5 *a' m! e %auti!u', o He a%kn!*&e)ge) that the "u "!'i/e a"" !a%h *a' n!/e& and that it in ol ed a )e"a tu e ( !m t a)iti!na& u&e' !( 'tatut! y inte " etati!n. o Ne/e the&e''5 in the en)5 L! ) O&i/e %ame t! ea&i7e that the e4ua& "ay &egi'&ati!n (e&& int! a 1'"e%ia& %ateg! y2 and ha) t! -e %!n't ue) in &ight !( the Unite) King)!m2' C!mmunity !-&igati!n'.

In Lit'te / .! th D y D!%k% the Council ;irecti e 00C.70CEEC pro ided 'or the protection o' employee4s rights in the e ent o' a change o' employer. According to the ;irecti e% an employer could not e ade un'air dismissal or redundancy payment legislation simply by trans'erring the business to someone else. In other words% an employee4s contractual rights could be en'orced against the new employer. The U( Trans'er o' Underta,ings !8rotection o' Employment# Regulations ./7.J< were designed to incorporate the ;irecti e?but they applied only to employees who were employed 3immediately4 be'ore the trans'er. The employees in Litster !a permanent wor,'orce o' twel e s,illed ship wor,ers o' arious trades# were sac,ed at 1.1> p.m. and the ta,eo er too, place at J.1> p.m. o' the same day. The Luestion 'or the Court was whether the oneGhour gap eliminated the wor,ers4 contractual rights against the new owner% which would be the case i' they were not employed 3immediately4 be'ore the trans'er.

The H!u'e !( L! )' a%kn!*&e)ge) that a 't i%t&y &ite a& inte " etati!n !( the Regu&ati!n' supported the employer4s argument !a gap o' one hour was not the same as 3immediately4#. Cut L! ) O&i/e e(e e) t! Pi%k't!ne !in particular% to Lord Templeman4s speech# to +u'ti(y a "u "!'i/e %!n't u%ti!n !( )!me'ti% &a* in ! )e t! gi/e e((e%t t! the C!un%i& Di e%ti/e. L! ) O&i/e *a' m! e %!n(i)ent thi' time in !-'e /ing that a "u "!'i/e %!n't u%ti!n may-e a""&ie) t! &egi'&ati!n e en though it might in ol e '!me )e"a tu e ( !m the 't i%t an) &ite a& a""&i%ati!n !( the *! )' that the &egi'&atu e ha' e&e%te) t! u'e, Litster "orth ;ry ;oc, E.//>F . AC <J@% <</% <0@ Lord 5li er The approach to the construction o' primary and subordinate legislation enacted to gi e e''ect to the United (ingdomHs obligations under the

E.E.C. Treaty ha e been the subBect matter o' recent authority in this 2ouse !see 8ic,stone "reemans 8ic% E./7/F A.C. @@# and is not in doubt. I' the legislation can reasonably be construed so as to con'orm with those obligations G obligations which are to be ascertained not only 'rom the wording o' the relKe ant ;irecti e but 'rom the interpretation placed upon it by the European Court o' $ustice at Lu&embourg G such a purposi e construction will be applied e en though% perhaps% it may in ol e some departure 'rom the strict and literal application o' the words which the legislaKture has elected to use. E... F the purpose o' the ;irecti e and o' the Regulations was and is to Osa'eguardO the rights o' employees on a trans'er and that there is a mandatory obligation to pro ide remedies which are e''ecti e and not merely symbolic to which the Regulations were intended to gi e e''ect. The remedies pro ided by the EEmployment 8rotection !Consolidation# Act ../07F in J< SI ./7.C.0/J. the case o' an insol ent trans'eror are largely illusory unless they can be e&erted against the trans'eree as the ;irecti e contemplates and I do not

'ind it concei able that% in 'raming Regulations intending to gi e e''ect to the ;irecti e% the Secretary o' State could ha e en isKaged that its purpose should be capable o' being a oided by the transparent de ice to which resort was had in the instant case. 8ic,stone "reemans 8ic. E./7/F A.C. @@% has established that the greater 'le&ibility a ailable to the court in applying a purposi e construction to legislaKtion designed to gi e e''ect to the United (ingdomHs Treaty obligations to the Community enables the court% where necessary% to supply by implication words appropriate to comply with those obligations) see particularly the speech by Lord Templeman E... F

G +oth cases did not stipulate the basis 'or purposi e approach Ee en without re'er to ECA as basisF but concern the statutory instrument passed under ECA and so to implement the EU law obligation In neithe Pi%k't!ne n! Lit'te do the +u)ge' 'ti"u&ate the -a'i' (! a "u "!'i/e2 a"" !a%h, L! ) Tem"&eman% in both cases% 'inds the inte " etati/e !-&igati!n in C!mmunity &a* !the EC$4s decision in Don Colson#% whereas L! ) O&i/e a""ea ' t! (!&&!* L! ) Di"&!%k2' principle of construction in &arland ' (ritish )ail #ngineering *discussed in the follo"ing section+, Interestingly% n!t !ne !( the +u)gment' in eithe %a'e e&ie' !n '' ;#8$ an) #D$ !' the European Communities Act ./0= t! +u'ti(y thei "u "!'i/e a"" !a%h% which ten)' t! 'ugge't that the )uty !n the %!u t' t! inte " et A%t' !( Pa &iament in %!n(! mity *ith EU &a* 'tem' ( !m a '!u %e in)e"en)ent !( the 8AB; A%t.

In any e ent% -!th %a'e' e%!gni7e that the e i' '!mething %!n'tituti!na&&y '"e%ia& a-!ut EU &a*) they %!n%e n the inte " etati!n !( 'tatut! y in't ument' "a''e) un)e ', ;#;$ !( the 8AB; A%t% and so thei "u "!'e *a' e/i)ent&y t! im"&ement EU &a* !-&igati!n'. Cut inte e'ting&y neithe a"" !a%h presents a direct th eat t! ! th!)!x the! ie' !( '!/e eignty.

G Questions remain that whether EU law impose new interpretation The (a%t emain'% howe er% that EU &a*% and since =>>> also the 2uman Rights Act .//7% im"!'e ne* inte " etati/e !-&igati!n' u"!n the %!u t', The Luestion is n!t !n&y *hat meaning the *! )' a e %a"a-&e !( yie&)ing% -ut a&'! *hethe the *! )' %an -e ma)e t! yie&) a 'en'e %!n'i'tent *ith EU &a* and Con ention rights.

Statut! y %!n't u%ti!n -a'e) !n the %!mm!n &a* G common law obligation to read statutes in light o' the earlier treaty :hereas% in -acarthy4s% the duty to construe Acts o' 8arliament in line with Community law was deri ed 'rom the European Communities Act ./0=?a national statute?an a&te nati/e '!u %e !( that !-&igati!n *a' i)enti(ie) in Ga &an) / C iti'h Rai& Enginee ing Lt). -rs Aarland was employed by +ritish Rail Engineering. The company operated a scheme under which all employees% their spouses% and dependent children were entitled to !without ha ing a contractual right to# concessionary tra el rates during the employee4s employment. A'ter retirement% all 'ormer employees !male and 'emale# retained their entitlement to some 'orm o' concession. In the case o' male employees only% concessions also continued to apply to spouses and dependent children. In other words% 'amilies o' retired women were not

entitled to tra el concessions. -rs Aarland claimed that the scheme was discriminatory and the Luestion be'ore the 2ouse o' Lords was whether discretionary tra el 'acilities pro ided by an employer that continued 'or male employees a'ter retirement came within the de'inition o' pay< under Art. .<0 T"EU. The 2ouse o' Lords held that% in this case% discretionary tra el concessions did amount to pay. Aarland +ritish Rail Engineering Ltd E./71F = AC 0<.% 00. Lord ;iploc, E...F e en i' the obligation to obser e the pro isions o' EArt. .<0 T"EUF were an obligation assumed by the U( under an ordinary international treaty or con ention and there were no Luestion o' the treaty obligation being directly applicable as part o' the law to be applied by the courts in this country without need 'or 'urther enactment% it is a principle o' construction o' U( statutes% now too well established to call 'or citation o' authority% that the words o' a statute passed a'ter the Treaty has been signed and dealing with the subBect matter o' the international obligation o' the U (% are to be construed% i' they are reasonably capable o'

bearKing such a meaning% as intended to carry out the obligation% and not to be inconsistent with it. A 'ortiori is this the case where the Treaty obligation arises under one o' the Community treaties to which s. = ECA applies. The instant appeal does not present an appropriate occasion to consider whether% ha ing regard to the e&press direction as to the construction o' enactments Oto be passedO which is contained in section =!J#% anything short o' an e&press positi e statement in an Act o' 8arliament passed a'ter $anuary .% ./01% that a particular pro ision is intended to be made in breach o' an obligation assumed by the United (ingdom under a Community treaty% would Busti'y an English court in construing that pro ision in a manner inconsistent with a Community treaty obligation o' the United (ingdom% howe er wide a departure 'rom the prima 'acie meanKing o' the language o' the pro ision might be needed in order to achie e consistency.

The H!u'e !( L! )' 't e''e' that C!mmunity &a* i' e&e/ant t! the %! e%t inte " etati!n o' the )!me'ti% 'tatute, The -a'i' !( the %!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h% howe er% is not s, 2*4+ of the #uropean Communities Act 1972% as in -acarthy4s Smith% -ut a %!mm!n &a* !-&igati!n t! ea) 'tatute' in &ight !( the ea &ie t eaty5 e'"e%ia&&y i( the t eaty in 4ue'ti!n i' the T eaty !( R!me. According to Lord ;iploc,% thi' " in%i"&e *a' '! *e&& e'ta-&i'he) that he )i) n!t nee) t! 'u""! t it *ith the %itati!n !( auth! ity? although he could ha'e cited %alomon ' Customs and #!cise Commissioners,

Sa&!m!n / Cu't!m' an) Ex%i'e C!mmi''i!ne ' E./@0F = Q+ ..@%.J1 Di"&!%k L0 There is a " ima (a%ie " e'um"ti!n that Pa &iament )!e' n!t inten) t! a%t in - ea%h !( inte nati!na& &a*% in%&u)ing the ein '"e%i(i% t eaty !-&igati!n'* and i( !ne !( the meaning' *hi%h %an ea'!na-&y -e a'% i-e) t! the &egi'&ati!n i' %!n'!nant with the treaty obligations an) an!the ! !the ' a e n!t% the meaning *hi%h i' %!n'!nant i' t! -e " e(e e).

G This approach seem 'a our ;enning approach re'er to direct applicability be'ore attempt to interpret the Act L! ) Di"&!%k ' a"" !a%h a""ea ' t! e+e%t the a"" !a%h !( the ma-ority in Ma%a thy2' / Smith and (a/!u L! ) Denning' a&te nati/e a"" !a%h% which was to e(e the 4ue'ti!n' !( inte " etati!n an) )i e%t a""&i%a-i&ity !( C!mmunity &a* t! the EC0 -e(! e attem"ting t! %!n't ue the A%t. The "u "!'e !( the e(e en%e was to " !/i)e the nati!na& %!u t *ith mate ia& t! ai) it in the %!n't u%ti!n !( the )!me'ti% 'tatute.

G Although Lord ;iploc,4s approach deri ed 'rom common law seem did not 'it to new legal order or ECA% but still 'ul'ill the reLuirement by ECA It should be noted that L! ) Di"&!%k2' a&te nati/e a"" !a%h 'u((e ' ( !m its "a !%hia& &ega& ea'!ning. The %!mm!n &a* !-&igati!n to ea) 'tatute' in &ight !( the ea &ie t eaty is n!t %!m"ati-&e *ith the 1ne* &ega& ! )e 2 " in%i"&e in /an Gen) 1for the benefit of "hich the states ha'e limited their so'ereign rights., It is a gua-&y a&'! in - ea%h !( ', = o' the European Communities Act ./0= !the meaning5 /a&i)ity5 an) e((e%t !( C!mmunity &a* i' t! -e )ete mine) eithe -y the EC0 ! *ith e(e en%e t! it' %a'e &a*#. o (ut /ord 0iploc1 refer to common la" M! e!/e % L! ) Di"&!%k )!e' n!t e(e t! the ne* u&e !( 'tatut! y inte " etati!n in ', ;,

He n!nethe&e'' manage' t! a%hie/e the e'u&t e4ui e) -y the 8AB; A%t) a UK %!u t should %!n't ue a&& )!me'ti% &egi'&ati!n in a manne e'"e%ting EEC !-&igati!n' 3ho"e'er "ide a departure from the prima facie meaning of the pro'ision might be needed in order to achie'e consistency,.

Summa y !( = a"" !a%he' So% t! 'um u"% in a case in which nati!na& &egi'&ati!n i' (!un) t! %!n(&i%t *ith C!mmunity law% the U( courts de eloped th ee a"" !a%he' in as many cases. o According to the ma+! ity !"ini!n by the Court o' Appeal in Ma%a thy2' / Smith% a UK %!u t i' n!t a&&!*e) t! 't et%h the *! )' !( an A%t !( Pa &iament th !ugh inte " etati!n ! %!n't u%ti!n, The T eaty %ann!t a((e%t the meaning !( nati!na& &a*% and the e(! e %ann!t -e u'e) a' an ai) t! 'tatut! y %!n't u%ti!n. Instead% the %!u t 'h!u&) e(e the %a'e t! the EC05 whereupon nati!na& &egi'&ati!n i' a)+u)ge) eithe t! -e %!m"ati-&e ! in%!m"ati-&e *ith the T eaty,

o In %!nt a't% L! ) Denning' )i''ent in the same case states that the courts should initially loo, to the T eaty a' an ai) t! 'tatut! y %!n't u%ti!n and t y t! en)e nati!na& &a* %!m"ati-&e *ith EU &a*. I' that attem"t (ai&'% then% -y /i tue !( ', ;#8$ an) #D$ !( the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;% the %!u t' nee) t! gi/e " i! ity t! the !/e i)ing (! %e2' !( EU &a*, o This latter approach 'inds (a/!u *ith L! ) Di"&!%k who% howe er% -a'e' the %!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h !n the %!mm!n &a* " e'um"ti!n !( 'tatut! y inte " etati!n ega )ing inte naKti!na& t eaty !-&igati!n'.

G Lord ;iploc,4s approach di''erent 'rom ;enning4s in the sense that he did not prepared go beyond the legitimate ground o' interpretation E;enning4s approach a bit no elF% but when 'acing linguistic limit% then ha e to uphold domestic law instead e en 8arliament did not e&pressly stated so E;enning need 8arliament e&pressly against EU lawF Cut 'tatut! y inte " etati!n ha' &ingui'ti% &imit' that are reached *hen the 'tatut! y *! )' %ann!t -e e%!n%i&e) *ith EU &a*. L! ) Di"&!%k2' !"ini!n !((e ' n! gui)an%e 'or that scenario. P e'uma-&y5 in 'u%h a %a'e% the %!u t' *!u&) inte " et the in%!n'i'tent *! )' in the 'tatute a' Pa &iament2' intent t! &egi'&ate %!nt a y t! EU &a* and )i e%t&y e((e%ti/e EU &a* *!u&) -e im"&ie)&y e"ea&e),

Hunt> Lord ;enningHs approach in -acarthyHs there'ore achie ed a greater degree o' entrenchment 'or Community law than Lord ;iploc,Hs wea,er construction approach in Aarland. The di''erence% howe er% is one o' degree rather than ,ind. +oth are 'orms o' entrenchment. +oth 'ocus on the interpreti e role o' Budges in a way which is capable o' transcending the ine itaKble conundrums which attend the traditional acceptance o' the so ereignty o' 8arliament as the premise 'rom which all else 'lows. The essential di''erence resides only in the degree to which each Budge is prepared to recognise an e olution o' Budicial obligation away 'rom the uncomplicated 'ealty traditionally owed to the U( 8arliament.

L! ) Di"&!%k *a' " e"a e) t! inte " et 'tatute' (&exi-&y an) % eati/e&y in the light o' Community law% so as to a oid inconsistencies where er possible% -ut *a' n!t " e"a e) t! g! -ey!n) *hat he %!n'i)e e) t! -e the &egitimate -!un)' !( inte " etati!n, Although apparently closer to traditional ideas o' so ereignty than Lord ;enning% e en this approach amounts to a signi'icant modi'ication. Implied repeal is theoretically preser ed% but is li,ely to be a rare e ent as the court will stri e to 'ind an interpretation which a oids inconsistency arising. Lord ;enning% on the other hand% was not only prepared to go 'urther than Lord ;iploc, in attempting to arri e at an interpretation o' a domestic statute which a oided con'lict% but was prepared to gi e precedence to Community law in cases o' irreconcilable con'lict.

8arliament was still so ereign% not only in the ultimate sense that it could repeal the ECA% but also% it would seem% in the slightly less ultimate sense that 8arliament could still% in any gi en statute% e&press its intention to legislate inconsistently with Community law. .! L! ) Di"&!%k% by comparison% Pa &iament )i) n!t nee) t! ex" e'' it' intenti!n '! ex"&i%it&y) it *a' en!ugh i( the &anguage !( the 'tatute %!u&) n!t -e gi/en a meaning *hi%h *a' %!n'i'tent *ith the e&e/ant C!mmunity &a* *ith!ut g!ing -ey!n) *hat (! him *e e the m! e tight&y ) a*n -!un)' !( &egitimate inte " etati!n,

A""&i%ati!n 'umma y> The %!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h %an -e 'umma i7e) as 'ollows. o There is a u&e !( inte " etati!n !either a %!mm!n &a* u&e concerning international treaty obligations% or ', ;#D$ !( the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;# to the e((e%t that Pa &iament i' " e'ume) n!t t! inten) 'tatute' to !/e i)e EU &a*. o In%!n'i'ten%ie' between U( statutes and EU law are e'!&/e) in (a/!u !( the &atte un&e'' Pa &iament "a''e' a (utu e A%t ex" e''&y 'tating that it inten)' t! !/e i)e EU &a*,

EU &a* n! &!nge i' the in%!ming ti)e -ut a& ea)y - ing )!*n !u !*n 'ea *a&& The realiIation that neithe %!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h *a' me e&y a matte !( ! th!)!x 'tatut! y inte " etati!n% -ut ha)5 in (a%t% e'u&te) in a )eg ee !( ent en%hment% dawned on L! ) Denning '!me yea ' a(te he eti e) ( !m the Cen%h% when he e%!n(igu e) hi' (am!u' meta"h! !( EU &a* in Shie&)' / C!!m-e' a' an in%!ming ti)e, L! ) Denning> ELG u '!/e eignty ha' -een taken a*ay by the European Court o' $ustice. It has ma)e many )e%i'i!n' im"inging !n !u 'tatute &a* and says that *e a e t! !-ey it' )e%i'i!n' in'tea) !( !u !*n 'tatute &a*,

It has )!ne thi' -y t*! mean'. o "irstly it has )!ne it -y it' !*n meth!) !( inte " etati!n, It ha' n!t !-eye) the *! )' !( the T eaty. It has n!t inte " ete) those words a%%! )ing t! thei t ue meaning. It has put on the Treaty an inte " etati!n a%%! )ing t! thei !*n /ie*' !( "!&i%y E...F. o Se%!n)&y% the Eu !"ean C!u t ha' he&) that a&& the Eu !"ean )i e%ti/e' a e -in)ing *ithin ea%h !( the Eu !"ean C!unt ie'* and mu't -e en(! %e) -y the nati!na& %!u t'* e/en th!ugh they a e %!nt a y t! !u nati!na& &a*. They are a 'u" eme &a* !/e i)ing a&& !u nati!na& &a*'. Ou %!u t' mu't n! &!nge en(! %e !u nati!na&

&a*'. They must en'orce Community law. E...F E... F I propose to amend my ./0J dictum in this way) N! &!nge i' Eu !"ean &a* an in%!ming ti)e owing up the estuaries o' England. It i' n!* &ike a ti)a& *a/e - inging )!*n !u 'ea *a&&' an) (&!*ing in&an) !/e !u (ie&)' an) h!u'e'?to the dismay o' all. C!mment> This 'entiment a%hie/e) *i)e'" ea) "u-&i% e%!gniti!n in the a'termath o' the legendary episode that is )i'%u''e) in the next 'e%ti!n.

C, THE DISAPPLICATION APPROACH Construction ran out o' steam As we ha e seen% be'ore .//.% the main Budicial approach when 'aced with a statute that did not con'orm to Community law was to use 3't !ng " in%i"&e' !( %!n't u%ti!n t! en)e the nati!na& 'tatute %!m"ati-&e *ith C!mmunity &a*,2 Cut thi' !"ti!n an !ut !( 'team in the 'emina& .a%t! tame %a'e. The bac,ground o' "actortame is the Common "isheries 8olicy !C"8#% which di ided up 'ishing Luotas on national lines% and the Act o' Accession o' Spain to the EEC% which restricted the number o' Spanish essels allowed to 'ish in Community waters. In order to circum ent these restrictions% Spanish 'ishing companies started LuotaG hopping4?that is% registering their boats as +ritish and then 'ishing under the +ritish Luota% e en though they lac,ed any genuine lin, with the United (ingdom.

In ./77% the United (ingdom passed the Me %hant Shi""ing A%t 8AII and the -erchant Shipping !registration o' "ishing Dessels# Regulations ./77%J0 which were intended to put an end to LuotaG hopping by Spanish boats. The ./77 Act created a new register 'or all +ritish 'ishing essels% including those already registered under the -erchant Shipping Act .7/J. According to s. .J o' the ./77 Act% a 'ishing essel could be registered in the new register only i') o the essel was +ritishGowned*J7 o the essel was managed% and its operations directed and controlled% 'rom within the United (ingdom* and o any charterer% manager% or operator o' the essel was a Luali'ied !+ritish# person or company.J/ O((i%ia&' an) mini'te ' *e e a*a e !( the ob iously discriminatory and segregationist nature o' their economic policy% and also o' the i'k that thei &egi'&ati!n %!u&) am!unt t! a 'u((i%ient&y 'e i!u' - ea%h !( EC &a* that% in turn% could gi e rise to damages 'or "actortame.

R Secretary o' State 'or Transport e& parte "actortame !No. <# E=>>>F . AC <=J% <J1 Lord Slynn The Secretary o' State 'or Transport wrote to the AttorneyGAeneral on == 5ctober ./70. O5''icials ha e E... F concluded that we should proceed as originally intended. :hile this does pose a ris, to our position on damages% the o''icial iew was that the applicant would ha e to o ercome so many obstacles G not least o' which would be winning his case in the European Court on the substanti e issue on whether our law is compatible with the Treaty G that the ris, was worth ta,ing gi en the drawbac,s o' the alternati es.O E:e are also told that% on =J "ebruary ./70% counsel ad ised the go ernment that)F OE... aFny discrimination that arises out o' the proposed measures is a natural conseLuence o' the Ecommon 'isheries policyF itsel' which di ides Luotas along national lines. E... F :e conKsider that rules on nationality o' 'ishing essels are the most appropriate way o' establishing a genuine lin, between the -ember States and the essel intending to 'ish 'or the -ember StateHs Luota%

particularly ha ing regard to possible alternati es.O

Act challenged in Community le el but the more important is the issue raised in domestic le el Ese eral timesF 5n =7 -arch ./77% be'ore the +ill recei ed royal assent% the Eu !"ean C!mmi''i!n *a ne) the UK g!/e nment that the " !"!'e) %!n)iti!n' *e e " ima (a%ie %!nt a y t! the ight !( e'ta-&i'hment, A(te the 8AII A%t %ame int! (! %e% the Unite) King)!m *a' 'u%%e''(u&&y %ha&&enge) at C!mmunity &e/e& -y the C!mmi''i!n5 which - !ught in( ingement " !%ee)ing' again't the Unite) King)!m un)e A t, ;FI T.EU (! a )e%&a ati!n that ', 8D !( the 8AII A%t - ea%he) the ight !( ( ee)!m !( e'ta-&i'hment,

Cut the Unite) King)!m *a' a&'! %ha&&enge) at nati!na& &e/e&5 in +u)i%ia& e/ie* " !%ee)ing' brought by the owners or operators o' ninetyG'i e (i'hing /e''e&' that ha) -een egi'te e) a' C iti'h un)e the Me %hant Shi""ing A%t 8IAD5 but *hi%h %!u&) n!t 'ati'(y !ne ! m! e !( the %!n)iti!n' &ai) )!*n in the 8AII A%t% and so were depri ed o' the right to 'ish 'rom April ./7/.

Hea ing 8> C5A and 25L held the domestic court cannot suspend the application o' Acts o' 8arliament in the granting o' interim relie' The ;i isional Court made an Art. =@0 T"EU re'erence on the substanti e issues o' Community law raised in the proceedings !the case that became "actortame II#. The Di/i'i!na& C!u t a&'! ! )e e) that% by way o' interim relie'% the a""&i%ati!n !( the 8AII A%t an) the 8AII Regu&ati!n' ha) t! -e 'u'"en)e). This was% howe er% !/e tu ne) -y a unanim!u' C!u t !( A""ea&% which held that% un)e nati!na& &a*% the %!u t' ha) n! "!*e t! 'u'"en) the a""&i%ati!n !( A%t' !( Pa &iament because% at common law% an interim inBunction could not be granted against the Crown.

aggrie ed citiIens to obtain Bustice against central go ernment. Section =. pro ided that !emphasis added#) In any ci il proceedings by or against the Crown the court shall% subBect to the pro isions o' this Act% ha e power to ma,e all such orders as it has power to ma,e in proceedings between subBects ESF 8ro ided that) o where in any proceedings against the Crown ESF the court shall not grant an inBunction or ma,e an order o' speci'ic per'ormance% but may in lieu thereo' ma,e an order declaratory o' the rights o' the parties The court shall not in any ci il proceedings grant any inBunction or ma,e any order against an o''icer o' the Crown i' the e''ect o' granting the inBunction or ma,ing the order would be to gi e any relie' against the Crown which could not ha e been obtained in proceedings against the Crown. "or the purposes o' the Act% ministers are o''icers o' the Crown.

Comment) The .a%t! tame &itigati!n i&&u't ate' the "!tentia& in+u'ti%e that thi' %!u&) %au'e, The S"ani'h (i'he men a""&ie) (! +u)i%ia& e/ie* !( the Se% eta y !( State 'or Transports decision not to register their trawlers to 'ish in U( waters under the -erchant Shipping Act ./77. Thei &a*ye ' kne* that it *!u&) take many m!nth' (! the %!u t' t! hea and reach a decision on their application% *hi%h *!u&) ha/e (inan%ia&&y uine) the -u'ine''e' and le't their employees without a Bob. C!n'e4uent&y5 the S"ani'h a""&i%ant' *ante) an inte im in+un%ti!n t! " e/ent the mini'te ( !m )e egi'te ing thei /e''e&' until the 'inal outcome o' the case was ,nown. At (i 't5 the Eng&i'h %!u t' e(u'e) t! g ant an inte im in+un%ti!n5 !n the g !un) that

they ha) n! "!*e t! )! '!% because this would 'all 'oul o' s. =.!=# o' the ./J0 Act.

The H!u'e !( L! )' ag ee) *ith the C!u t !( A""ea& !n it' inte " etati!n !( nati!na& &a*% but e(e e) the %a'e t! the EC0 !n C!mmunity &a*, Case CG=.1C7/ R w Secretary o' State 'or Transport e& parte "actortame Ltd !"actortame i# E.//>F ECR IG=J11 .1 The 2ouse o' Lords% be'ore which the matter was brought% ga e its abo ementioned Budgment o' .7 -ay ./7/. In its Budgment it 'ound in the 'irst place that the claims by the appellants in the main proceedings that they would su''er irreparable damage i' the interim relie' which they sought were not granted and they were success'ul in the main proceedKings were well 'ounded. 2owe er% it held that% under national law% the English courts had no power to grant interim relie' in a case such as the one be'ore it. -ore speci'ically% it held that the grant o' such relie' was precluded by the old commonG law rule that an interim inBunction may not be granted against the Crown% that is to say against the go ernment% in conBunction with the

presumption that an Act o' 8arliament is in con'ormity with Community law until such time as a decision on its compatibility with that law has been gi en. .J The 2ouse o' Lords then turned to the Luestion whether% notwithstanding that rule o' national law% English courts had the power% under Community law% to grant an interim inBuncKtion against the Crown. ES F ESF => The EEC$F has ES F held that any pro ision o' a national legal system and any legislati e% administrati e or Budicial practice which might impair the e''ecti eness o' Community law by withholding 'rom the national court ha ing Burisdiction to apply such law the power to do e eKrything necessary at the moment o' its application to set aside national legislati e pro isions which might pre ent% e en temporarily% Community rules 'rom ha ing 'ull 'orce and e''ect are incompatible with those reLuirements% which are the ery essence o' Community law.<= =. It must be added that the 'ull e''ecti eness o' Community law would be Bust as much impaired i' a rule o' national law could pre ent a

court seised o' a dispute go erned by Community law 'rom granting interim relie' in order to ensure the 'ull e''ecti eness o' the Budgment to be gi en on the e&istence o' the rights claimed under Community law. It 'ollows that a court which in those circumstances would grant interim relie'% i' it were not 'or a rule o' national law% is obliged to set aside that rule.

G EC0) Interim relie' has to be granted% national law is automatically inapplicable According to the EC0% it is C!mmunity &a* that e4ui e' the g anting !( inte im e&ie( to secure e''ecti e interim protection o' directly e''ecti e rights. "or this reason% s. =. o' the Crown 8roceedings Act ./J0 !no inBunction against the Crown# had to be set aside. The EC$4s ruling was wholly in line with the earlier case o' Simmenthal !a case that was re'erred to by Lawton L$ in -acarthy4s Smith#% in which it ha) u&e) that any %!n(&i%ting " !/i'i!n !( nati!na& &a* *a' )eeme) 1aut!mati%a&&y ina""&i%a-&e2 -y C!mmunity &a*,

Hea ing ;> 8S issueG 25LG 8arliament legislate ECA oluntarily and loyally accept the obligation e en though limit its so ereignty% so national court can grant the interim relie' Nonetheless% its decision in .a%t! tame I " !/!ke) 't !ng ea%ti!n' ega )ing the )emi'e !( "a &iamenta y '!/e eignty. 0!nathan Aitkin MP described the ruling as Han hi't! i%a& 'u en)e !( '!me %!n'tituti!na& 'igni(i%an%e2* Te))y Tay&! MP said that the decision was <!ne !( the m!'t ( ightening thing' that has happened since the time o' (ing Charles In light o' the constitutional di''iculties that the EC$4s ruling unearthed% *!u&) the H!u'e !( L! )' e'"!n) -y 't engthening the Unite) King)!m2' '!/e eignty )!%t ine ! -y a%%e"ting the EC02' 'u" ema%y )!%t ine?

R Secretary o' State 'or Transport e& parte .a%t! tame Lt) #N!, ;$> L! ) C i)ge Some public comments on the decision o' the Court o' $ustice% a''irming the Burisdiction o' the courts o' the member states to o erride national legislation i' necessary to enable interim relie' to be granted in protection o' rights under Community law% ha e suggested thatthis was a no el and dangerous in asion by a Community institution o' the so ereignty o' the United (ingdom 8arliament. +ut such comments are based on a misconception. I' the supremacy within the European Community o' Community law o er the national law o' member states was not always inherent in the EEC Treaty it was certainly well established in the Burisprudence o' the Court o' $ustice long be'ore the United (ingdom Boined the Community.

Thu'5 *hate/e &imitati!n !( it' '!/e eignty Pa &iament a%%e"te) *hen it ena%te) the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB; *a' enti e&y /!&unta y, Under the terms o' the ./0= Act it has always been clear that it was the )uty !( a Unite) King)!m %!u t% when deli ering 'inal Budgement% to !/e i)e any u&e !( nati!na& &a* (!un) t! -e in %!n(&i%t *ith any )i e%t&y en(! %ea-&e u&e !( C!mmunity &a*, Similarly% when decisions o' the Court o' $ustice ha e e&posed areas o' United (ingdom statute law which 'ailed to implement Council directi es% Pa &iament ha' a&*ay' &!ya&&y a%%e"te) the !-&igati!n t! make a"" !" iate an) " !m"t amen)ment',

Thus there is nothing in any way no el in according supremacy to rules o' Community law in areas to which they apply and to insist that% in the protection o' rights under Community law% nati!na& %!u t' mu't n!t -e " !hi-ite) -y u&e' !( nati!na& &a* ( !m g anting inte im e&ie( in a"" !" iate %a'e' i' n! m! e than a &!gi%a& e%!gniti!n !( that 'u" ema%y,

Limitati!n en) !( %!n't u%ti!n &ea) t! )i'a""&y the A%t -ut )i) n!t again't PS a' it i' !n&y )i'a""&y -ut n!t en)e e) /!i) The %!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h ea%he) it' &imit' here% because it *a' n! &!nge "!''i-&e t! %!n't ue the Me %hant Shi""ing A%t 8AII in a%%! )an%e *ith C!mmunity &a*. "or this reason% the EC0 e4ui e' nati!na& &a*5 *hi%h i' (!un) t! -e in%!n'i'tent *ith )i e%t&y e((e%ti/e C!mmunity &a*5 t! -e 'et a'i)e2?in other words% that the 'tatute i' en)e e) 1in!"e ati/e2 in the circumstances o' the particular case. It )!e' n!t mean that the 'tatute i' 1nu&&25 9!i)25 ! e"ea&e)2, The )i'a""&i%ati!n a"" !a%h i' at &ea't (! ma&&y e%!n%i&a-&e *ith '!/e eignty theory% -e%au'e it )!e' n!t in/!&/e the %!u t in any in/a&i)ati!n !( A%t' !( Pa &iament,

L!*e C!u t a&'! un)e the !-&igati!n t! a""&y C!mmunity &a* an) )i'a""&y nati!na& &a* a' it i' a&'! un)e 1nati!na& %!u t2 .!&&!*ing .a%t! tame% the H!u'e !( L! )' *ent !ne 'te" (u the in .//< in R Secretary o' State 'or Employment% ex "a te E4ua& O""! tunitie' C!mmi''i!n, The Employment 8rotection !Consolidation# Act ./07 distinguished between three categories o' wor,ers with respect to bringing a claim o' un'air dismissal be'ore the Industrial Tribunal% and to gain the right to redundancy pay. o Category .) an employee wor,ing .@ or more hours per wee, had to be with the same employer continuously 'or at least two years o Category =) those who wor,ed between 7 and .@ hours per wee, had to show 'i e years4 continuous employment. o Category 1) those wor,ing 'ewer than 7 hours per wee, did not acLuire any rights.

In other words% the Act draws a legal distinction between partGtime wor,ers !most o' whom were% in 'act% women# and 'ullGtime wor,ers !most o' whom were% in 'act% men# in relation to the conditions 'or receipt o' statutory redundancy pay and compensation 'or un'air disKmissal. :e ha e already seen that the EU protects the principle o' eLual pay both as a general principle o' primary legislation under Art. .<0 T"EU and in more detail in secondary legisGlation. Although the Act did not discriminate on grounds o' gender !its pro isions applied eLually to men and to women#% it clearly resulted in indirect discrimination against women. The main Luestion 'or the 2ouse o' Lords was whether the indirect discrimination against women could be obBecti ely Busti'ied. It could not) "actortame clearly stood 'or the proposiKtion that the U( courts had to gi e e''ect to directly e''ecti e Community law rights.

Another Luestion related to the 3tric,leGdown e''ect4 a'ter "actortame% i.e. the extent t! *hi%h the &!*e %!u t' #he e> the Di/i'i!na& C!u t$ *e e un)e an !-&igati!n t! a""&y C!mmunity &a* an) t! )i'a""&y any %!n(&i%ting nati!na& &a*,

R Secretary o' State 'or Employment ex "a te E4ua& O""! tunitie' C!mmi''i!n> L! ) Keith> The issues at sta,e are similar in character to those which were raised in "actortame. The ;i isional Court is the only English 'orum in which the E.5.C.% ha ing the capacity and su'K'icient interest to do so% is in a position to secure the result which it desires. It is said that the incompatibility issue could be tested in proceedings be'ore the European Court o' $ustice instituted by the European Commission against the United (ingdom under EArt. =<7 T"EUF. That may be true% but it a''ords no reason 'or concluding that the ;i isional Court is an inappropriate 'orum 'or the application by the E.5.C. designed towards a similar end and% indeed% there are grounds 'or the iew that the Di/i'i!na& C!u t i' the m! e a"" !" iate (! um% 'in%e the Eu !"ean C!u t !( 0u'ti%e ha' 'ai) that it i' (! the nati!na& %!u t t! )ete mine *hethe an in)i e%t&y )i'% iminat! y "ay

" a%ti%e i' (!un)e) !n !-+e%ti/e&y +u'ti(ie) e%!n!mi% g !un)', Subordination o' national law is simply ta,en and read e en without re'er to ECA or EC$% now lower court also be the 3constitutional court4 A'ter this decision% The Time' opened its leading article o' 0 -arch .//J with the 'ollowing sentence) 3C itain may n!* ha/e% 'or the 'irst time in its history% a %!n'tituti!na& %!u t< It suggested that the H!u'e !( L! )' ha) <'t u%k )!*n the 8ABI A%t a' 1un%!n'tituti!na&2% and had thereby u"'et the t a)iti!na& %!n'tituti!na& -a&an%e -et*een Pa &iament an) the %!u t', The leader was also concerned that the La* L! )' ha) examine) the 8ABI A%t *ith e(e en%e t! it' '!%ia& an) e%!n!mi% im"a%t in the manne !( a %!n'tituti!na& %!u t. o Pat i%ia Max*e&&

The 'ollowing commentator pursues a similar argument% pointing out correctly% howe er% that it *a' n!t the H!u'e !( L! )'5 -ut the Di/i'i!na& C!u t #M$5 that ha) a%te) in the manne !( a %!n'tituti!na& %!u t, Danny Ni%!&> .. .the dismantling o' 8arliamentary so ereignty has ad anced stepGbyG step. In "actortame the 2ouse o' Lords made it clear that it would ultimately uphold Community law rather than Acts o' 8arliament. #! parte #qual 2pportunities Commission 'h!*e) that the H!u'e n! &!nge (ee&' the nee) (! a e(e en%e t! the EC0 -e(! e im"ugning an A%t !( Pa &iament* the super isory Burisdiction o' the ;i isional Court now e&tends to declaring an Act o' 8arliament incompatible with Community law without recourse to Lu&embourg.

To that e&tent% the Di/i'i!na& C!u t i' n!* a %!n'tituti!na& %!u t, The "!'t3E4ua& O""! tunitie' C!mmi''i!n case law shows that &!*e %!u t' an) t i-una&' t!! ha/e +!ine) the ( ay in 'etting " ima y &egi'&ati!n a'i)e, A common 'eature o' these Industrial Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions is the terseness with which they deal with the issue o' disapplication) it appears that &!*e %!u t' an) t i-una&' n!* 'ee n! nee) t! +u'ti(y their actions -y e(e ing t! the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;* athe the 'u-! )inati!n !( A%t' !( Pa &iament t! C!mmunity &a* i' 'im"&y taken a' ea). To borrow a phrase 'rom the ;u,e o' :ellington% we are witnessing a re olution by due process o' law.

M! e h!'ti&e t!*a ) EU -y C!n'e /ati/e A(te the EOC %a'e% Mi%hae& H!*a )?the C!n'e /ati/e 2ome Secretary at the time?" e'ente) a "a"e t! Ca-inet a guing (! the 1 e"at iati!n2 !( "!*e ' ( !m C u''e&' and 'or the em!/a& !( the ight' !( C iti'h %!u t' t! en(! %e C!mmunity &a*, The EOC %a'e e/ea&' -!th the %!ntinuing ( a%tu ing !( the C!n'e /ati/e Pa ty !/e the Eu !"ean Uni!n% as well as legitimate concerns about the 'hi(t !( "!&iti%a& "!*e a*ay ( !m Pa &iament, :e will now return to "actortame in order to discuss the repercussions o' that shi't in more detail.

D, .ACTORTAME> A CONSTITUTIONAL RE9OLUTION? :hy -erchant Shipping Act did not imply repealed the ECAP +ecause ECA is bind the 'uture parliament which nothing more than re olutionary "actortame in ol ed tensions between di''erent sources o' law. At one le el% the common law and the Crown 8roceedings Act ./J0?which denied interim inBuncti e relie' in actions against the Crown?were 'ound to be contrary to Community law by the EC$. Thus% the earlier norms were o erruled by the later norms o' Community law% which had become part o' U( law by irtue o' s. =!J# o' the European Communities Act ./0=. This was relati ely uncontentious because o' the doctrine o' implied repeal.

At another le el% howe er% "actortame in ol ed a tension between certain pro isions o' the Treaty o' Rome and the later -erchant Shipping Act ./77 !that is% between a treaty o' international law and a statute% not between two statutes#. The chronology !and possible hierarchy# o' norms thus iewed is) o the T eaty !( R!me 8AFB: o the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;* and o the Me %hant Shi""ing A%t 8AII, Why *a' the )!%t ine !( im"&ie) e"ea& n!t a""&ie) in thi' in'tan%e? L! ) C i)ge a gue) that the United (ingdom ,new?or ought to ha e ,nown?what ,ind o' legal system it was plugging into and that% in passing the ./0= Act% Pa &iament /!&unta i&y a%%e"te) &imitati!n' u"!n it' '!/e eignty.

P !(e''! Wa)e' a''e''ment !( the 8AB; A%t i' 't !nge , Wa)e> Nothing in Lord +ridgeHs language suggests that he regarded the issue as one o' statutory construction. He take' it (! g ante) that Pa &iament %an Na%%e"tN a &imitati!n !( it' '!/e eignty which *i&& -e e((e%ti/e -!th (! the " e'ent an) (! the (utu e, It i' a 'tatement *hi%h %!u&) ha )&y -e %&ea e ) Pa &iament %an -in) it' 'u%%e''! '. I' that is not re olutionary% constitutional lawyers are ;utchmen. Craig seems to be putting it mildly when he says Othe reasoning o' Lord +ridge does not there'ore 'it well with that articulated by the traditional theoryO. +ut neither does Lord +ridgeHs reasoning 'it well with any theory based upon statutory construction%

such as the theory that e ery postG ./0= statute is to be construed as impliedly subBect to Community law% subBect only to e&press pro ision to the contrary. Nothing o' that ,ind is suggested by Lord +ridgeHs doctrine o' O oluntary acceptanceO by 8arliament o' Community law as a Olimitation o' its so ereigntyO. The truth is% apparently% that so 'ar 'rom containing Onothing in any way no elO% the new doctrine ma,es so ereignty a 'reely adBustable commodity whene er 8arliament chooses to accept some limitation. The e''ect may be similar to implying limitations into 'uture statutes% as Lord +ridge himsel' e&plains. +ut O oluntary acceptanceO goes much deeper into the 'oundations o' the constitution% sugKgesting by its ery no elty that the courts are re'ormulating the 'undamental rules about the e''ecti eness o' Acts o' 8arliament.

Wa)e' a gument is that the Pa &iament !( 8AB; ina)/e tent&y - !ught a-!ut a %!n'tituti!na& e/!&uti!n, The H!u'e !( L! )' in/!%ati!n !( the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB; t! )i'a""&y the Me %hant Shi""ing A%t 8AII is e/i)en%e that the Pa &iament !( 8AB; #%!nt a y t! ! th!)!x )!%t ine$ ha' 'u%%ee)e) in -in)ing it' 'u%%e''! ') 3Whi&e C itain emain' in the C!mmunity *e a e in a egime in *hi%h Pa &iament ha' -!un) it' 'u%%e''! ' 'u%%e''(u&&y5 an) *hi%h i' n!thing i( n!t e/!&uti!na y4 o :ade

C!nt a't /ie*) 8S still preser e while supremacy o' EU is uphold% because ECA only create rule o' construction 'or the latter statute :ades iew must be contrasted with that o' P !(e''! C aig% who a gue' that the 8AB; A%t % eate' !n&y a u&e !( %!n't u%ti!n (! 'u-'e4uent 'tatute'. In the a-'en%e !( ex" e'' *! )' t! the %!nt a y% 'tatute' mu't -e inte " ete) a' %!m"ati-&e *ith ight' a i'ing un)e C!mmunity &a* 8.8. Craig% So ereignty o' the United (ingdom 8arliament a'ter "actortameO !.//.# .. 9earboo, o' European Law ==.% =<>G. The ad ocates o' the traditional iew would argue as 'ollows. It has already been seen that the 'oundation o' the ;iceyan argument is a blend o' the empirical and the normati e. :hat is @> !.//@# ..= LQR <@7% <0.. important'orthe purposes o' the presentdiscussion is thatthe idea o'

unlimited 8arliamentary power is not on ;iceyHs% or :adeHs% species o' reasoning% immutable. It is not a static conKcept% but one which is capable o' trans'ormation. This trans'ormation could be e''ected by the empirical e idence altering% in the sense that some other institution does begin to assert control o er the subBect matter or 'orm o' legislation. The change in the traditional idea could also come about because o' a reassessment o' the normati e 'oundations on which ;icey constructed his own iew. The realiIation that these 'oundations were 'lawed e en at the time when ;icey himsel' wrote% and that they ha e been 'urther undermined since then% might cause some other institution% such as the courts% to consider whether they should be e&ercising control o er parliamentary power. In either e entuality% the ad ocates o' the tradiKtional iew would accept that the content o' the ultimate legal principle can alter. E... F The entry o' the United (ingdom into the EEC might there'ore be regarded as a catalyst 'or a partial change in the rule o' recognition% or ultimate legal principle% as it operates in the United (ingdom. The 'act o' entry would not in and o' itsel' bring about

this change% but it could be the catalyst prompting a reGthin,ing o' pre ious orthodo&y. This could occur in one o' two ways. 5n the one hand% it would be per'ectly possible in principle 'or the courts and 8arliament to modi'y the prior orthodo&y so that the rule% o' recognition would now read) H8arliament can do anything by simple maBority% e&cept in the area co ered by the EEC% in which area EEC law ta,es precedence.H The most e&treme 'orm o' this type o' change to the ultimate legal principle would mean that the ery alidity o' statutes which were inconsistent with Community law would be called in Luestion. At the ery least% it would mean that the doctrine o' implied repeal was no longer applicable in the conte&t o' clashes between Community law and national law. :hether this can be ta,en to ha e occurred will depend on the courtsH reaction to clashes between EEC law and national law in cases such as "actortame* and to 8arliamentHs response to that reaction. I' the legislature acLuiesces in an approach by the national Budiciary which accords supremacy to the EEC in the e ent o' a clash between national law and EEC law% then the modi'ication to the rule o' recognition will be

smoother and Luic,er. 5n the other hand% the courts could% less dramatically% treat section =!J# o' the European Communities Act ./0= as a rule o' interpretation to the e''ect that 8arliament is presumed not to intend statutes to o erride EEC law. 5n this iew inconKsistencies between United (ingdom statutes and EEC law would be resol ed in 'a our o' the latter% unless% H8arliament clearly and e&pressly states in a 'uture Act that it is to o erride Community law.H This appears to be the iew ta,en by at least some Budges% although the e&tent to which the courts ha e been willing in the past to read statutes so as to con'orm to EEC law has di''ered 'rom case to caseC The longer that we remain in the EEC the more li,ely it is that the courts will adopt this rule o' construction% which ser es to preser e the 'ormal eneer o' ;iceyan orthodo&y while undermining its substance.

C aig -ui&)' !n L! ) Denning' %!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h in Ma%a thy2'. He a gue' that unless and until 3arliament passes a statute with the ex" e'' intenti!n !( !/e i)ing C!mmunity &a* or lea ing the European Union% the %!u t' 'h!u&) 'ta t ( !m the a''um"ti!n that nati!na& &a* %!m"&ie' *ith EU &a*. In other words% the %!u t' 'h!u&) -en) !/e -a%k*a )' t! gi/e e((e%t t! EU &a* !e/en i( the words o' the 'tatute a e n!t %&ea an) may -e in %!n(&i%t#.

C aig he e en)! 'e' the setting o' a )!u-&e 'tan)a )) o the )uty !( the %!u t' i' t! %!n't u%tH*he e "!''i-&e?a &ate 'tatute in %!n(! mity *ith EU &a*% or o where im"!''i-&eHt! )i'a""&y the &ate 'tatute. The %!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h thu' 'ati'(ie' the EC0' 'u" ema%y )!%t ine% *hi&e " e'e /ing the 9enee F !( "a &iamenta y '!/e eignty) the %!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h )!e' n!t /ie* the 8AB; A%t a' ha/ing -een ent en%he),

C!unte 3A gument> +ut the rule o' recognition has be changed by Budges that Act can 'etter the 'uture 8arliament in "actortame 2.:.R. :ade) +ut is Ore olutionaryO the right word as a matter o' lawP 2as the 2ouse o' Lords adopted a new Orule o' recognitionO or Oultimate legal principleO% as to the alidity and e''ect o' Acts o' 8arliamentP A' C aig "ut' it% OThe ent y !( the Unite) King)!m int! the EEC might the e(! e -e ega )e) a' a %ata&y't (! a "a tia& %hange in the u&e !( e%!gniti!n% or ultimate legal princiKple% as it operates in the United (ingdom.O As pre iously supposed% the u&e *a' that an A%t !( Pa &iament in " !"e (! m ha) a-'!&ute&y !/e i)ing e((e%t% e&cept that it could not 'etter the corresponding power o' 'uture 8arliaments.

It is a u&e !( uni4ue %ha a%te % 'in%e !n&y the +u)ge' %an %hange it, It is 'or the Budges% and not 'or 8arliament% to say what is an e''ecti e Act o' 8arliament. I( the +u)ge' e%!gni'e that the e mu't -e a %hange% as by a&&!*ing (utu e Pa &iament' t! -e (ette e)5 thi' i' a te%hni%a& e/!&uti!n. That is what happens when the Budges% 'aced with a no el situation% elect to depart 'rom the 'amiliar rules 'or the sa,e o' political necessity. E...F in .a%t! tame the H!u'e !( L! )' e&e%te) t! a&&!* the Pa &iament !( 8AB; t! (ette the Pa &iament !( 8AII in ! )e that C!mmunity &a* might -e gi/en the " ima%y which practical politics ob iously reLuired. This in no way implies that the Budges E... F decided otherwise than 'or what appeared to them to be good legal reasons. The point is simply that the rule o' recognition is itsel' a political

'act which the Budges themsel es are able to change when they are con'ronted with a new situation which so demands.

Im"&ie) e"ea& %ann!t -e )!ne in Smith an) .a%t! tame %a'e> changes to constitution cannot be ambiguous% and btw statutes and the obBect o' policy must be same +56 .7.1 I-8LIE; RE8EAL AN; ENTRENC2-ENT The e/!&uti!n the'i' i' !(ten 'u""! te) with e idence that the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB; ha' ne/e -een im"&i%it&y e"ea&e) -y 'u-'e4uent %!n(&i%ting &egi'&ati!n and so must ha e been )e (a%t! ent en%he) again't im"&ie) e"ea&, In other words% the UK %!u t' 'h!u&) ha/e he&) that the Sex Di'% iminati!n A%t 8ABF in Ma%a thy<' an) the Me %hant Shi""ing A%t 8AII in .a%t! tame ha) im"&i%it&y e"ea&e) s. ;#D$ !( the 8AB; A%t,

Thi' a gument i' (a&'e (! th ee ea'!n', !.# As a matter o' +u)i%ia& " e%e)ent% it is a%%e"te) that %hange' t! the %!n'tituti!n %ann!t -e a%%i)enta& ! am-igu!u', o In one case% the %!u t e4ui e) <) a'ti%2 %hange' t! the %!n'tituti!n to be made 3plainly and distinctly4 by 8arliament. Ch! &t!n / Ling' o In another case% ex"&i%it 'tatut! y &anguage *a' e4ui e) t! amen) the %!n'tituti!n. o In that case% the court held that 3it *!u&) e4ui e a %!n/in%ing )em!n't ati!n t! 'ati'(y me that Pa &iament inten)e) t! e((e%t a %!n'tituti!na& %hange so momentous and 'arG reaching by so 'urti e a processH. Nai n / Uni/e 'ity

o So the ent en%hment in .a%t! tame !i' any# is o' a *eak " !%e)u a& #! manne an) (! m$ kin)% as discussed at the beginning o' this chapter) the !n&y e4ui ement i' that a 'im"&e "a &iamenta y ma+! ity ex" e''e' it'e&( in %&ea an) ex" e'' te m',

!=# As a matter o' principle% im"&ie) e"ea& %an !%%u !n&y *hen the e a e t*! 'tatute' !one earlier and one later# that )ea& *ith the 'ame !-+e%t !( "!&i%y% and when the later one contradicts !ad ertently or inad ertently# the earlier one. o Im"&ie) e"ea& *! k' h! i7!nta&&y in relation to e&press rules with li,e obBecti es. o In%!n'i'tent n! m' a e thu' e+e%te). o The &ate 'tatute " e/ai&' !/e the ea &ie t! the extent !( the in%!n'i'ten%y o This is "atent&y n!t the 'ituati!n in Ma%a thy<', o The %!n(&i%t in that %a'e *a' -et*een Art. .<0 T"EU and national law o It *a' n!t -et*een t*! nati!na& "ie%e' !( &egi'&ati!n,

!1# The Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB; i' a )i((e ent &egi'&ati/e anima&. o :hereas the E4ua& Pay A%t 8ABL% as amended by the Se& ;iscrimination Act ./0<% % eate' ne* ight'% the 8AB; A%t 1!n&y2 gi/e' e((e%t t! exi'ting ight'. o The 8AB; A%t )!e' n!t ha/e n! mati/e %!ntent% but is a bridging statute that re'ers to the EU legal order. o It )!e' n!t %!n(&i%t *ith the n! mati/e %!ntent !( "!&i%y 'tatute', o It i' the e(! e %!unte 3 intuiti/e t! u'e im"&ie) e"ea&. o The Court o' Appeal in -acarthy4s applied s. =!J# in the manner 'or which it was designed) it directed the Court to prioritiIe as between 'uture pieces o' legislation.

o The 8AB; A%t %ann!t -e a- !gate) -y an im"&ie) e"ea&. o An!the A%t !( the 'ame kin) *!u&) -e e4ui e) ex" e''&y t! un)! the e((e%t !( the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;5 -ut %e tain&y n!t an 1! )ina y2 A%t, The thi ) a gument menti!ne) e&ate' t! )em!% a%y !which was discussed in Chapter .=#. A t a)iti!na& UK %!n'tituti!na& "e '"e%ti/e suggests that the &ate A%t 'h!u&) a&*ay' -e a""&ie) -y the %!u t' because it e(&e%t' the m!'t e%ent #)em!% ati%$ *i&& !( Pa &iament.

Di((e ent /ie*) Shipping Act is undemocratic Act with the purpose o' minority iew% try to ban,rupt small enterprise +ut 8ro'essor Lo eland a gue' "e 'ua'i/e&y that EU &a* e(&e%t' a di''erent ersion o' democracy) it is not the result o' maBoritarian lawG ma,ing% but o' a process o' consensual negotiations* it may con'lict with national law% but it ha' e%ei/e) a 1% !''3nati!na& 'ea& !( &egi'&ati/e a"" !/a&2 an)5 in the %a'e !( the t eatie'5 unanim!u' a"" !/a& -y e/e y mem-e 'tate !with di''erent legal cultures and political histories#. L!/e&an) i' '%athing !( the t a)iti!na& "!'iti!n% a' *e&& a' !( &ega& ana&y'i' that is &imite) t! un)e 'tan)ing .a%t! tame purely in terms o' the e&ati!n'hi" -et*een Pa &iament an) the %!u t', The e i' a - !a)e "!&iti%a& an) '!%ia& %!ntext that mu't -e -! ne in min) when discussing democracy and legitimacy.

Ian L!/e&an) :hat has rather been 'orgotten in respect o' .a%t! tame is that this particular %!n'tituti!na& e"i'!)e *a' t igge e) -y the )e&i-e ate )e%i'i!n !( a xen!"h!-i% min! ita ian g!/e nment to use its Commons and Lords maBorities !the one generated by the support o' =DO !( the e&e%t! ate* the other )e i/e) ( !m the " in%i"&e !( he e)ita y "ee age'# to ena%t a % u)e&y 'eg egati!ni't e%!n!mi% "!&i%y which G in addition to clearly - ea%hing the T eaty !( R!me G was inten)e) t! -ank u"t 'e/e a& -u'ine'' ente " i'e' and th !* many "e!"&e int! unem"&!yment, It would be a /e y 't ange /ie* !( <)em!% a%y< which nonetheless accorded primacy to such beha iour.

Wa)e) "actortame case show technical legal re olution that court change the ultimate legal principle that the legal system rest Eallegiance to 8arliamentF by disapply the statute Returning to the relationship between 8arliament and courts% Wa)e ha' e"eate)&y a gue) that> o 'in%e the Unite) King)!m +!ine) the Eu !"ean Uni!n% Pa &iament ha' &!'t it' un e't i%te) "!*e !( ena%ting and amending laws* and o the +u)ge' ha/e uni&ate a&&y %hange) the u&e !( e%!gniti!n -y (!&&!*ing EU &a*% thus initiating a te%hni%a& e/!&uti!n, :ade4s position can also be attac,ed 'rom a Burisprudential perspecti e. 2e claims that the !&e !( the %!u t' has been e't i%te) t! the e%!gniti!n !( "a &iamenta y '!/e eignty a' a "!&iti%a& (a%t 'rom which the legitimacy o' all law emanates.

So% *hen the UK %!u t' " i! iti7e) C!mmunity &a* !/e nati!na& &a* in .a%t! tame% they 'ing&ehan)e)&y %hange) the "!&iti%a& (a%t #an) hen%e the meaning$ !( '!/e eignty, The %!u t' ha/e a%hie/e) a te%hni%a& &ega& e/!&uti!n -y (&!uting the u&timate %!n'tituti!na& " in%i"&e. :ade claims that 1a %hange in thi' g un)n! m E(un)amenta& n! mG %an -e a%hie/e) !n&y -y a &ega& e/!&uti!n5 and !n&y i( the +u)ge' e&e%t t! a-an)!n thei )ee"&y !!te) a&&egian%e t! the u&ing Pa &iament !( the )ay,

2e regards the %!u t' )e%i'i!n t! a""&y C!mmunity &a* a' !""!'e) t! 'tatute &a* as %hanging the u&timate &ega& " in%i"&e !n *hi%h the &ega& 'y'tem e't'. 5n this account% the outcome o' "actortame% the issue o' an interim inBunction against the Crown% and the )i'a""&i%ati!n !( an A%t !( Pa &iament %an !n&y -e )e'% i-e) a' 1the m!'t ) amati% e/ent in %!n'tituti!na& a)+u)i%ati!n since the se enteenth century.

C!unte 3A) $udges has no change the rule but only ma,e the e&ception or Luali'ication in no el situation% and this is usual 'or any common law rules T e/! A&&an )i'"ute' thi' &ine !( ea'!ning, T,R,S, A&&an> The di''iculty with 8ro'essor :adeHs thesis is immediately apparent 'rom his reassurance that despite the change o' 'undamental rule O'or reasons o' political necessityO G that Community law should be gi en the primacy which practical politics reLuired G we should not assume that in E... F "actortame E... F the Budges Odecided otherwise than 'or what appeared to them to be good legal reasonsO. Now% it is scarcely possible to argue both that changes in the rule o' recognition are made or ac,nowledged 'or Ogood legal reasonsO and that such a rule conG stitutes only a Opolitical 'actO% subBect to alteration 'or reasons o' Opolitical necessityO. Legal reasons are usually understood to ground a legitimate Budicial decision by in o,ing settled

doctrine or principle) they ser e to Busti'y it by e&plaining the sense in which it was reLuired by the standards o' the e&isting legal order. A re olution occurs% or is cemented% only when a new source o' authority is ac,nowledged% or 'undamental rule adopted% which is not BustiK'ied by the e&isting order% 'rom which the courts ha e 'or whate er reason withdrawn their allegiance. I' legal reasons e&ist% drawn 'rom accepted legal principles or constitutional doctrine% they can be inspected and weighed. I' su''iciently strong they will Busti'y a Budicial decision* i' not% the Budges will either ha e erred in law or abandoned law 'or politics. :hich alternati e does 8ro'essor :ade en isage as the appropriate e&planation o' "actortameP The preser aKtion o' a distinction between legal principle% on the one hand% and political e&pediency% on the other% is surely essential to any coherent understanding o' the rule o' law. $udges who ma,e political decisions which iolate accepted constitutional principles plainly act impropKerly) their conduct% when properly so described% should be condemned as illegitimate e en i' it is e&pedient or popular.

The e&istence o' good legal reasons 'or the .a%t! tame )e%i'i!n' 'h!*' that5 (a ( !m any ) amati%5 let alone unauthorised% %hange in the N u&e !( e%!gniti!nO% the H!u'e !( L! )' me e&y )ete mine) *hat the exi'ting %!n'tituti!na& ! )e e4ui e) in n!/e& %i %um'tan%e'. The iew that the a%kn!*&e)gement !( ex%e"ti!n' ! 4ua&i(i%ati!n' t! the u&e that %!u t' 'h!u&) gi/e un%!n)iti!na& !-e)ien%e t! 'tatute'5 an) i( thi' am!unt' t! N e/!&uti!nN i' 'im"&y )!gmati% % and ultimately incoherent. E/e y !the %!mm!n &a* u&e i' 'u-+e%t t! 'u%h m!)i(i%ati!n an) 4ua&i(i%ati!n in 'u%%e''i/e )e%i'i!n'5 and there is n! ea'!n (! t eating the u&e !( !-e)ien%e t! 'tatute' )i((e ent&y,

E olution rather than re olution In the same way that the union o' .0>0 ought to be iewed as an organic outcome arising out o' the .@77 recon'iguration% '! the 8AB; a%%e''i!n !ught t! -e /ie*e) a' an e/!&uti!n% athe than a e/!&uti!n5 !( the %!n'tituti!n,

.a%t! tame 'h!* the %hanging in "!&iti%' *! &)5 n! m! e Wa Damage A%t e"i'!)e E en i' Allan is right and .a%t! tame *a' n!t 1) amati%2 ( !m a +u)i%ia& "e '"e%ti/e% the %a'e )!e' ha/e (a 3 ea%hing %!n'e4uen%e' ega )ing the a%%e"tan%e n!t !n&y -y the +u)i%ia y% -ut a&'! -y Pa &iament% !( the EC02' )e%i'i!n, Pa &iamenta y a%%e"tan%e was n!t 'im"&y a &ega& (! ma&ity, A%%! )ing t! the EC0% a - ea%h -y a mem-e 'tate !( any " !/i'i!n !( EC &a* may gi/e i'e t! )amage' and% in )ue %!u 'e% the Unite) King)!m ha) t! "ay '!me*he e -et*een PFFm an) P8LLm in %!m"en'ati!n t! the S"ani'h (i'he men !the claims submitted by "actortame totalled R;IFm -e(! e inte e't#. . !m a "a &iamenta y "e '"e%ti/e% the outcome o' .a%t! tame )!e' ha/e g a/e im"&i%ati!n' (! the e&ati!n'hi" -et*een &a* an) "!&iti%',

L!ugh&in> The most basic point is that the structure o' the European Union ? constituted by law and dri en by legal instruments?has ensured that issues o' legal interpretation are now placed at the centre o' the political process. When in 8AJD the +u)i%ia y u&e) that the UK g!/e nment 'h!u&) "ay %!m"en'ati!n to a maBor corporation 'or )e't !ying it' " !"e ty in *a time and the go ernment did not li,e the result% it 'im"&y " !m!te) an A%t *hi%h nu&&i(ie) the %!u t u&ing,< o Cu mah Oi& C! / L! ) A)/!%ate E8AJDG: Wa Damage A%t 8AJF The %!nt a't *ith the 4u!ta3 h!""ing 'aga thi ty yea ' &ate %!u&) '%a %e&y -e m! e 'ta k. In the %!ntem"! a y *! &)% the &anguage !( ight' an) the )e%i'i!n' !( the +u)i%ia y a e n!* a-&e t! "enet ate t! the %! e !( "!*e "!&iti%',

E, THOCURN 9 SUNDERLAND CIT@ COUNCIL>JI THE METRIC MART@RS CASE EU law as e&ternal te&t only get its status within domestic law i.e. within 8S and 8S cannot be modi'ied by e&ternal te&t but only by common law consistent with constitutional principle :e ha e already come across the colour'ul 2igh Court case o' Thoburn in the conte&t o' distinguishing between constitutional and ordinary statutes !Chapter =#. 9ou will recall that Laws L$ distinguished between ordinary4 and constitutional4 statutes% and that the European Communities Act ./0= belonged to the latter group.@/ "rom this distinction% it 'ollows that 35rdinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not4.0> A constitutional statute can only be amended% according to Laws L$% by unambiguous and e&press words in the later statute. +ut how does Laws L$ reach this no el conclusionP In a 'irst step% La*' L0 ha) t! )ea& *ith the a gument adduced by legal counsel that EU law had become entrenched rather than incorporated

in U( law* that 4so long as the 56 remains a 7ember %tate8 the pre9accession model of 3arliamentary so'ereignty is of historical8 but not actual8 significance. and that EU law was to be accorded primacy in the U( domestic legal sysKtems simply by irtue o' the claims o' EU law itsel'. La*' L0 e+e%te) thi' a''e ti!n a' 1(a&'e2, Th!-u n / Sun)e &an) City C!un%i& E=>>=F La* L0> E</F :hate er may be the position elsewhere% the law o' England disallows any such assumption. 8arliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal% wholly or partly% o' the ECA. It cannot stipulate as to the manner and 'orm o' any subseLuent legislation. It cannot stipulate against implied repeal any more than it can stipulate against e&press repeal. Thus the e i' n!thing in the ECA *hi%h a&&!*' the C!u t !( 0u'ti%e5

! any !the in'tituti!n' !( the EU5 t! t!u%h ! 4ua&i(y the %!n)iti!n' !( Pa &iament<' &egi'&ati/e 'u" ema%y in the United (ingdom. N!t -e%au'e the &egi'&atu e %h!'e n!t t! a&&!* it* -e%au'e -y !u &a* it %!u&) n!t a&&!* it, That being so% the legislati e and Budicial institutions o' the EU cannot intrude upon those conditions. The +ritish 8arliament has not the authority to authorise any such thing. Ceing '!/e eign5 it %ann!t a-an)!n it' '!/e eignty,

Accordingly the e a e n! %i %um'tan%e' in *hi%h the +u i'" u)en%e !( the C!u t !( 0u'ti%e can e&e/ate C!mmunity &a* t! a 'tatu' *ithin the %! "u' !( Eng&i'h )!me'ti% &a* to which it %!u&) n!t a'"i e -y any !ute !( Eng&i'h &a* it'e&(, Thi' i'5 !( %!u 'e5 the t a)iti!na& )!%t ine !( '!/e eignty. I( i' t! -e m!)i(ie)5 it %e tain&y %ann!t -e )!ne -y the in%! "! ati!n !( exte na& text', The %!n)iti!n' !( Pa &iament<' &egi'&ati/e 'u" ema%y in the Unite) King)!m ne%e''a i&y emain in the United (ingdomHs hands. Cut the t a)iti!na& )!%t ine ha' in my +u)gment -een m!)i(ie)% It ha' -een )!ne -y the %!mm!n &a*5 *h!&&y %!n'i'tent&y *ith %!n'tituti!na& " in%i"&e,

Comment: Laws L$ e+e%t' the 1Eu !3%ent i% a gument that EU &a* %!u&) 1-!!t't a"2 it'e&( int! 'u" ema%y *ithin the Unite) King)!m) EU &a* )!e' n!t ha/e 'u" ema%y 'im"&y -e%au'e the EC0 ha' 'ai) that it is a principle o' Community law that it has supremacy Thi' a"" !a%h is% a'ter all% in%!m"ati-&e *ith %!n'tituti!na& ! th!)!xy5 *hi%h 'ay' that it i' -ey!n) the "!*e ' !( Pa &iament to a-an)!n ! &imit it' '!/e eignty ! that !( it' 'u%%e''! '.

S! h!* )!e' La*' L0 manage t! gi/e e((e%t t! EU &a* in thi' %a'e? 2e does it with a cle er and inno ati e tric,) the t a)iti!na& )!%t ine !( '!/e eignty i' 'ti&& %ent a& t! UK "u-&i% &a*% but !and this is the tric,# it has been m!)i(ie) -y the %!mm!n &a*5 *hi%h e%!gni7e' that %e tain 'tatute' !such as the European Communities Act ./0=# a e %!n'tituti!na&2 an) e4ui e ex" e'' *! )' in a &ate 'tatute t! e((e%t e"ea& ! a- !gati!n,

5 erloo, point) Court held that the the word o' ECA determine o erriding e''ect to EU law which di''erent 'rom the EC$ decision that absolute supremacy An o'ten o erloo,ed conseLuence o' Laws L$4s Budgment is% howe er% that% apart 'rom progressi ely de eloping the common law% it a ti%u&ate' a i/a& /i'i!n t! the EC02' )!%t ine !( 'u" ema%y !( EU &a*, Thohurn Sunderland City Council E=>>=F E:2C ./< Admin* E=>>1F Q+ .<. La*' L0 E@/F In my Budgment !as will by now be clear# the correct analysis o' that relationship Ebetween EU and U( lawF in ol es and reLuires these 'ollowing 'our propositions. !.# All the speci'ic rights and obligations which EU law creates are by the ECA incorporated into our domestic law and ran, supreme) that is% anything in our substanti e law inconsistent with any o' these rights and obligations is abrogated or must be modi'ied to

a oid the inconsistency. This is true e en where the inconsistent municipal pro ision is contained in primary legislation. !=# The ECA is a constitutional statute) that is% it cannot be impliedly repealed. !1# The truth o' !=# is deri ed% not 'rom EU law% but purely 'rom the law o' England) the common law recognises a category o' constitutional statutes. !J# The (un)amenta& &ega& -a'i' !( the Unite) King)!m<' e&ati!n'hi" *ith the EU e't' *ith the )!me'ti%% not the European% legal powers. In the e ent% which no doubt would ne er happen in the real world% that a Eu !"ean mea'u e *a' 'een t! -e e"ugnant t! a (un)amenta& ! %!n'tituti!na& ight guaranteed by the law o' England% a 4ue'ti!n *!u&) a i'e *hethe the gene a& *! )' !( the ECA *e e 'u((i%ient t! in%! "! ate the mea'u e an) gi/e it !/e i)ing e((e%t in )!me'ti% &a*, +ut that is ery 'ar 'rom this case.

Comment: 9ou will remember that the EC0 had% in C!'ta / ENEL% held that 3the &a* 'temming ( !m the T eaty5 an in)e"en)ent '!u %e !( &a*% could not% because o' its special original nature% be !/e i))en -y )!me'ti% &ega& " !/i'i!n'5 h!*e/e ( ame)2. And remember also that% in Inte nati!na&e Han)e&'ge'e&&'%ha(t% it emphasiIed that 3the /a&i)ity !( a %!mmunity mea'u e ! it' e((e%t *ithin a mem-e 'tate %ann!t -e a((e%te) -y a&&egati!n' that it un' %!unte t! eithe (un)amenta& ights as 'ormulated by the constitution o' that state or the principles o' a national constitutional structure4 The EC02' 'taun%h "!'iti!n *a' " !-&emati% (! mem-e 'tate' *ith a %!n'tituti!na& %!)e an) a %!n'tituti!na& %!u t that a%te) a' it' gua )ian !initially% Aermany and Italy#.

As we saw in Chapter .=% the .//1 -aastricht Treaty in ol ed 'urther trans'ers o' so ereign powKers 'rom the member states to the European Union% as well as a 'ear that a more power'ul EU might ma,e decisions under the 'le&ibility clause in Art. 1>7 TEC !now Art. 1<= T"EU# that e&ceeded those con'erred powers.

MINI CASE STUD@ ON THE RELATIONSHIP CETWEEN NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND THE SUPREMAC@ O. EUROPEAN UNION LAW Se eral countries top courts will pre ent the application o' EU law i' go beyond the remit o' treaty Article 1>7 TEC I' action by the Community should pro e necessary to attain% in the course o' the operation o' the common mar,et% one o' the obBecti es o' the Community and this Treaty has not proK ided the necessary powers% the Council shall% acting unanimously on a proposal 'rom the Commission and a'ter consulting the European 8arliament ta,e the appropriate measures.0J +runner European Union Treaty !H-aastrichtH# E.//JF . C-LR <0 !"ederal Constitutional Court Aermany#% EJ/F E... F i' European institutions E... F were to treat or de elop the Union Treaty in a way that was no longer co ered by the Treaty E... F the resultant legislati e instruments would not be

legally binding within the sphere o' Aerman so ereignty. 01 Case ..C0> Internationale 2andelsgesellscha't mb2 E./0>F ECR ..1J% E1F. 0J Article 1<= T"EU pro ides) T' action by the Union should pro e necessary% within the 'ramewor, o' the policies de'ined in the Treaties% to attain one o' the obBecti es set out in the Treaties% and the Treaties ha e not pro ided the necessary powers% the Council% acting unanimously on a proposal 'rom the Commission and a'ter obtaining the consent o' the European 8arliament% shall adopt the appropriate measures. :here the measures in Luestion are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislati e procedure% it shall also act unanKimously on a proposal 'rom the Commission and a'ter obtaining the consent o' the European 8arliament.4 5pinion =C/J E.//@F ECR .G.077% E1>F !EC$# EArticle 1>7F cannot ser e as a basis 'or widening the scope o' Community powers beyond the general 'ramewor, created by the pro isions o' the Treaty as a whole and% in particular% by those that de'ine the tas,s and the acti ities o' the

Community. 5n any iew% Article E1>7F cannot be used as a basis 'or the adoption o' pro isions whose e''ect would% in substance% be to amend the Treaty without 'ollowing the procedure which it pro ides 'or that purpose. Carisen Rasmussen !H-aastrichtH# E.///F 1 C-LR 7<J !Supreme Court% ;enmar,#% E11F ;anish courts must rule that an E.C. act is inapplicable in ;enmar, i' the e&traordinary situaKtion should arise that with the reLuired certainty it can be established that an E.C. act which has been upheld by the European Court o' $ustice is based on an application o' the Treaty which lies beyond the surrender o' so ereignty according to the Act o' Accession. Similar interpretations apply with regard to Community law rules and legal principles which are based on the practice o' the European Court o' $ustice. 8I US <>C>J Sugar Quota Regulation II !Constitutional Court% CIech Republic#% $udgment o' 7 -arch =Q>@0< E...F the delegation o' a part o' the powers o' national organs may persist only so long as these powers are e&ercised in a manner that is

compatible with the preser ation o' the 'oundations o' state so ereignty o' the CIech Republic% and in a manner which does not threaten the ery essence o' the substanti e lawG based state. In such determination the Constitutional Court is called upon to protect constitutionalism !Art. 71 o' the Constitution o' the CIech Republic#. Lisbon Treaty ;ecision +Der'A% = + E =C>7% $udgment o' 1> $une =>>/% E=J>F?E=J.F !"ederal Constitution Court% Aermany# I' legal protection cannot be obtained at the Union le el% the "ederal Constitutional Court re iews whether legal instruments o' the European institutions and bodies E... F ,eep within the boundaries o' the so ereign powers accorded to them by way o' con'erred power. E... F The ultra ires re iew E... F can result in Community law or Union law being declared inapKplicable in Aermany.

In other words% the Ge man5 C7e%h5 an) Dani'h t!" %!u t' ha e said that they *i&& m!nit! the a%ti/itie' !( the EU in'tituti!n'% and that i( they g! -ey!n) the emit !( the t eatie' !that is% i' they act ultra ires#% then the nati!na& 'tate ! gan' an) !((i%ia&' *!u&) -e " e/ente)2 !n %!n3'tituti!na& g !un)' ( !m a""&ying EU &a* in those member states. In Thoburn% La*', L0 a))' the e&ati/e&y *eak /!i%e !( the UK High C!u t t! the &i't !( '%e"ti%a& %!n'tituti!na& %!u t',

U( court able to against EU by using 2RA more than be'ore 2RA e en though without written constitution Aidan 5HNeill) Laws L.$.H s reBection o' the ObootstrapO model as a 'oundation 'or the primacy o' Community law o er domestic law E...F and his attempt to reconcile the duty to uphold 'undamental national constitutional rights with the duty to gi e e''ect to Community law brings the United (ingdom courts into line with the constitutional courts in many other -ember States. The history o' the relationship between the EC$ and the higher courts o' Aermany% "rance% Italy% ;enmar,% Spain and indeed Ireland show Bust this ,ind o' tension between the application o' national constitutional norms and the reLuirements o' Community law. Clearly% national supreme and constitutional courts which ha e been established to protect the integrity o' their national constitutions will ha e di''iculty in reconciling this duty with that o' applying a body o' supraG national law which claims a supremacy and legitimacy o er and

against those national constitutions. E...F +y contrast where% as in the Unite) King)!m5 the e i' n! * itten %!n'tituti!n5 there ha e been n! '"e%i(i% nati!na& n! m' *hi%h might -e a""ea&e) t! -y nati!na& %!u t' t! %ha&&enge the in(&uen%e an) in(&ux !( C!mmunity &a*. The %!ming int! (! %e !( the HRA 8AAI %hange' that "!'iti!n a)i%a&&y. Now Unite) King)!m %!u t' ha/e (un)amenta& ight' t! a""ea& t! !/e an) again't the )eman)' !( C!mmunity law. It %an "e ha"' -e anti%i"ate) that the H!u'e !( L! )'< " e/i!u'&y enthu'ia'ti%a&&y %!mmunautai e a"" !a%h an) *i&&ingne'' t! a""&y Eu !"ean C!mmunity &a* principles and doctrines to national issues will un)e g! '!me )eg ee !( ea''e''ment -y the A""e&&ate C!mmittee En!* the Su" eme C!u tG.

The approach generally ta,en is that% gi en that 8arliament has committed the United (ingdom to continued 'ull membership o' the European Union% the national courts in the United (ingdom ha e no option but to apply the law as de eloped by the EC$% e en where this leads to them challenging and stri,ing down legislation emanating 'rom the national 8arliament on the grounds o' its incompatibility with Community law% or legal principles will be di''icult to sustain in a case in which 'undamental rights considerations point to a di''erent result. It i' 'ugge'te) that a ne* N"a a)igm 'hi(tN in the Unite) King)!m %!n'tituti!n i' the e(! e n!* un)e *ay E'ta tG% -a'e) !n %!n'i)e ati!n' e&ati/e t! the nati!na& %!u t<' e((e%ti/e " !te%ti!n !( (un)amenta& ight' again't the e&ecuti e% 8arliament and% indeed% the in'tituKti!n' !( the Eu !"ean Uni!n,

D!me'ti% 'u" eme !( EU &a* i' 'tem ( !m ECA *hi%h %!n(i m -y S,8I EUA Emay-e im"&ie) that it i' n!t ( !m EU &a* it'e&( ! %!mm!n &a*G La*' L0 ' +u)gment is dri en by% and has e'u&te) in5 in% ea'ing&y /!%a& %!n%e n' am!ng %!n'tituti!na& &a*ye ' in e&ati!n t! the +u)i%ia y In the %!ntext !( EU &a* Wa)e2' a gument !see 2:.R. :ade% 3So ereignty) Re olution or e olutionP< on p. @1# is that EU mem-e 'hi" t igge e) a m!)i(i%ati!n !( the u&timate %!n'tituti!na& u&e #the u&e !( e%!gniti!n ! G un)n! m$ in the UK -y +u)i%ia y In the conte&t o' common law constitutionalism !see Chapter 1#% both academics and Budges ha e also intimated that were 8arliament to enact legislation undermining the rule o' law on which the written constitution rests% the courts would not be under a duty to uphold such legislation.

The m!'t 'igni(i%ant )e/e&!"ment since Thoburn has been Pa &iament2' e'"!n'e t! thi' )e-ate in the (! m !( the Eu !"ean Uni!n A%t #EUA$ ;L88, Se%ti!n 8I in particular was dra'ted to %!unte the a gument "ut (! *a ) #un'u%%e''(u&&y5 a' *e ha/e 'een$ -y &ega& %!un'e& in Th!-u n that EU &a* %!n'titute' a ne* highe aut!n!m!u' &ega& ! )e which has -e%!me an integ a& "a t !( the UK2' &ega& 'y'tem in)e"en)ent !( 'tatute. Although initially much more ambitious and contro ersial% the 'inal wording o' the pro ision appears to be harmless at 'irst sight.

Eu !"ean Uni!n A%t ;L885 ',8I o <Di e%t&y a""&i%a-&e ! )i e%t&y e((e%ti/e EU law !that is% the rights% powers% liabilities% obliKgations% restrictions% remedies and procedures re'erred to in section =!.# !( the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB;$ (a&&' t! -e e%!gni'e) and a ailable in law in the United (ingdom !n&y -y /i tue !( that A%t or where it is reLuired to be recognised and a ailable in law by irtue o' any other ActH.

The Ex"&anat! y N!te' a%%!m"anying the ;L88 A%t% written by go ernment lawyers% stated) .=>. This )e%&a at! y " !/i'i!n *a' in%&u)e) in the A%t in ! )e t! a)) e'' %!n%e n' that the )!%t ine !( "a &iamenta y '!/e eignty may in the (utu e -e e !)e) -y )e%i'i!n' !( the %!u t'. +y pro iding in statute that directly e((e%ti/e an) )i e%t&y a""&i%a-&e EU &a* !n&y take' e((e%t in the UK &ega& ! )e th !ugh the *i&& !( Pa &iament an) -y /i tue !( the Eu !"ean C!mmunitie' A%t 8AB; or where it is e4ui e) t! -e e%!gni'e) an) a/ai&a-&e in &a* -y /i tue !( any !the A%t5 this will " !/i)e %&ea auth! ity *hi%h %an -e e&ie) u"!n t! %!unte a gument' that EU &a* %!n'titute' a ne* highe aut!n!m!u' &ega& ! )e deri ed 'rom the EU Treaties or international law and principles which has become an integral part o' the U(Hs legal system independent o' statute.

Se%ti!n 8I i' n!t a 1'!/e eignty %&au'e2 !it neither mentions the word 3so ereignty4% nor does it address the supremacy o' EU law which stems 'rom the acceptance by the U( Budiciary#% -ut a )e%&a at! y " !/i'i!n that a((i m' the /a&i)ity !( EU &a* a' 'temming ( !m 'e%ti!n ;#8$ ECA, So what was the reason 'or introducing this pro ision in the EUAP M, G! )!n an) M, D!ugan> ESection .7F is intended to neuter the potential argument that a shi't in the United (ingdomHs constitutional paradigm has occurred% and that the supremacy o' EU law throughout the Union deri es 'rom a European grundnorm% which is not susceptible to domestic alteration or renunciation. Such an argument is% howe er% essentially political% and most closely associKated with a Eurosceptic rhetoric lac,ing a persuasi e e idential 'oundation. It is well estabKlished as a matter o' U( constitutional law that the domestic supremacy o' EU law stems 'rom

8arliamentHs enactment o' the ECA. E... F It may be that% some two decades a'ter the decision o' the 2ouse o' Lords in "actortame !No.=#% there is '!me /i tue in ',8I emin)ing u' that the )!me'ti% 'u" ema%y !( EU &a* e't' a&!ne !n it' %!ntinuing 'tatut! y -a'i'. It certainly seems to " !/i)e (u the e/i)en%e that *hi&e La*' L, 0, *a' %! e%t t! a''e t in Th!-u n / Sun)e &an) City C!un%i& that the )!me'ti% 'u" ema%y !( EU &a* )i) n!t 'tem ( !m EU &a* it'e&(% -ut he *a' * !ng t! a gue that it *a' a%hie/e) a' a e'u&t !( the %!mm!n &a* a((! )ing the ECA a '"e%ia& N%!n'tituti!na&N 'tatu'% thus rendering it immune 'rom implied repeal. Instead% the a""&i%a-i&ity an) e((e%ti/ene'' !( EU &a* *ithin the Unite) King)!m i' ex%&u'i/e&y t a%e) -y ',8I t! the &egi'&ati!n itsel'% *ith n! menti!n !( an inte /enti!n -y the %!mm!n &a*.

This point is% howe er% principally a matter o' domestic interest% e&ating in "a ti%u&a t! the %&a'h -et*een %!mm!n &a* %!n'tituti!na&i'm an) "a &iamenta y '!/e eignty% and has only an incidental impact on the relationship between domestic and European law% in so 'ar as it might e'ta-&i'h *hi%h %!n'tituti!na& agent5 the %!u t' ! Pa &iament5 i' entit&e) t! )ete mine the extent t! *hi%h the'e t*! &ega& ! )e ' %an %!exi't, 8ointless o' s..7G did not assert 8arliament4s ultimate legislati e supremacy o er EU law% silent to the arious important points Aordon and ;ougan4s reading o' s. .7 EUA is 'ar m! e %ha ita-&e than L! ) Hannay !( Chi'*i%k who was scathing o' the e''ects o' legal counsel4s misconstruction o' the correct position in Thoburn) o I( thi' Pa &iament &egi'&ate' e/e y time a " !'e%uting att! ney make' a -!'h &ike that and it i' )i'mi''e) -y the +u)ge% *e *!u&) -e he e e/e y

)ay !( the yea (! a-!ut ;L yea ', Su e&y it i' n!t a -a'i' (! &egi'&ati!n, o It i' 'im"&y unne%e''a y,2 Instead o' asserting 8arliament4s ultimate legislati e supremacy o er EU law as planned and promised at the +ill stage5 ', 8I EUA (a&&' 'i&ent !n the matte ,

It neithe e'!&/e' the %!n'tituti!na& )e-ate' a-!ut the " !"e !&e !( the +u)i%ia y% n! does it !((e ne* gui)an%e t! +u)ge' !"e ating in the "!'t3 .a%t! tame e a !( 'tatut! y inte " etati!n, In political terms% the " !/i'i!n i' em-a a''ing !it was inten)e) a' a 1'!/e eignty2 %&au'e% but u&timate&y !n&y a&&!*e) t! e"eat ', ;#8$ ECA 8AB;#% an) in %!n'tituti!na& te m' it i' "!int&e'',

CONCLUDING COMMENTS Th!-u n e" e'ent' the thi ) 'tage in the e%e"ti!n !( EU &a* by U( courts. The %!n't u%ti!n a"" !a%h e'u&te) in the 1in%!ming ti)e2 !( C!mmunity &a*. The )i'a""&i%ati!n a"" !a%h ein(! %e) the meta"h! !( the 1ti)a& *a/e2, 5ne reading o' Th!-u n suggests that the UK %!u t' may n!* -e e e%ting (&!!) )e(en%e'> La*' L02' )i%ta5 an) the " e'en%e !( ', 8I EUA5 'ugge't a et eat t! (un)amenta& nati!na& /a&ue' that )eman) " !te%ti!n !( the highe't #%!n'tituti!na&$ ! )e in &ight !( the EU &a* tsunami that *i&& !/e *he&m nati!na& '!/e eignty,

Cut !n an!the ea)ing% Th!-u n i' an en&ightene)5 u" t! )ate5 an) ! igina& a%%!unt !( the UK %!n'tituti!n an) it' &ega& '!u %e'. +y brea,ing the dominant constitutional paradigm% La*' L0 e((e%ti/e&y - eak' ne* g !un) -y em"ha'i7ing a nati!na& "!'iti!n that i' !"en t! EU &a*. In contrast% the H!u'e !( L! )' in .a%t! tame ga/e a %auti!u' an) e't aine) +u)gment an) manage) t! a%%!mm!)ate EU &a* th !ugh a )!%t ine !( inte " etati!n% thus diminishing the implied repeal arguments that were put 'orward.

"uture way) 8S with Implied repeal or EU law with common law alue The 'uture t a+e%t! y !( the %!n'tituti!na& e&ati!n'hi" -et*een nati!na& &a* an) EU &a* emain' t! -e 'een ) o either it *i&& %!ntinue t! - eak *ith the t a)iti!na& )!%t ine !( "a &iamenta y so ereignty an) *ith the 'im"&e &!gi% !( im"&ie) e"ea&% and this brea, will be e(&e%te) in a +u)i%ia& t en) that " !g e''i/e&y )e/e&!"' an ex"&i%it %!n'tituti!na& +u i'" u)en%e* or o the " ima%y !( EU &a* an) !in another conte&t# the %!mm!n &a* *i&& e'u&t in a eg e''i!n t!*a )' "a !%hia& %!mm!n &a* /a&ue', Either way% -y " i/i&eging the %!mm!n &a*% La*' L0 ha' man!eu/ e) +u)i%ia& ea'!ning into pre iously unchartered waters% and all eyes are on 'uture cases o' a European and constitutional nature% and *hethe they *i&& en)! 'e5 e+e%t5 ! )i'tingui'h La*' L02'

inn!/ati/e a"" !a%h in Th!-u n *hi%h mu't n!* -e ea) in %!n+un%ti!n *ith ', 8I EUA,