The Relationship Between EU Law And National Law
The Belgian Counseil D’Etat referred the case to the court of justice. It was presided over by President, C. Gulmann. First of all, it follows from the wordings in article 1(a) of directive 75/442, as it had been amended, the scope of the term waste reverts back the meaning of the word discard. Based on the directive75/442, the term discard covers both disposing and recoveringa subastance and object. According to the court of justice, in its judgment of December 18th 1996, that involved case c-129/96, inter environment wallonie also called region wallonie, although the member states do not have the responsibility of adopting the measures that are necessary in achieving the results that were prescribed by the directive on waste before the end of the period that has been prescribed for transposition, following second paragraph of Article 5, it follows that, after taking into consideration paragraph three of Article 189 of the EEC treaty which are articles 249 and 10 of the Treaty, and from the directive itself that during that period they must stop from taking measures liable seriously to compromise the prescribed outcome.
In its order for reference, the counseil detatt had ruled on the five of the six pleas raised by inter-environment wallonie and had annulled the various provisions of the order. In its remaining plea, inter environment wallonie maintains and insists that article 5(1) of the order infringes particularly article 11 of directive75/442 and article 3 of directive 91/689 though it excludes from the permit the operations of setting up and running installations that are specifically intended for industrial production process.
The name of the general who gave the court his opinion in order for it to reach its conclusion is called Kokott. The name of the defendant who was the employer is Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos. The first question referred should be answered as follows; a national court is required upon entry, immediately to interpret the whole body of the rules of national law, as far as possible in the light of the purpose and wording so that it can achieve an outcome that is consistent with the objective that the directive pursues. Objective reason for imposing a fixed term on employment relationships. The court seeks to essentially ascertain which aspects for the purposes of framework agreement on work that is fixed term and may contain objective reasons that justify the conclusion of successive fixed term relationships. It asks specifically whether the simple fact that the conclusion of a fixed term employment contract is described by a legislative provision that can constitute an objective reason that lies within the framework agreement.
The referring court cited the excerpt from article 5(1) of presidential decree number 81/2003 in its 2003 version which contains a provision to that effect. Indirect effect is a general principle that is applied whenever direct effect cannot be used. Despite that, the circumstances in which it can be used might be limited because it only applies if its possible for interpretation of international laws in accordance with community law.
The appeal between Attridge Law LLP and Mr. S Law, and Ms S Coleman was not allowed and was therefore dismissed. In paragraph 22 the judge is satisfied with the intent of the 2003 regulations and the purpose of the amendments to the DDA 1195 which was affected by those regulations and was to be put into direct full effect in the United Kingdom. parliaments manifest broad intention was correctly meant to implement the directive, it was not only his presumption but it was made clear in explanatory memorandum to the regulations that the manifest and express purpose of 2003 regulations was to produce full compliance with UKs obligation to implement the directive. The direct effect ensures the effectiveness and application of European law in member states. In addition, the direct effect may only relate to relations between member state and an individual or be extended to relations between individuals.
Mr. J Nesbitt who had been instructed by Ford & Warren made an appearance on behalf of the Claimant. The case concerned a provisional driving license. section 3 being a key section in the human rights act, it forms the primary means by which convention rights are brought into the law of the country. Parliament had decreed that all allegations in future and those existing shall be interpreted in a particular manner such that all allegations must be interpreted in a particular way. All legislation must be read and given effect to in a manner that is compatible with convention rights. This was the intention of the parliament as it was expressed in section 3 and the courts had to give effect to this intention. Unfortunately, in making the provision of interpretation of the legislation, the section does not completely free itself from ambiqiuty. It is open to more than one consideration. The difficulty lies in the word possible which is read in conjunction with section 3 and section 4. Parliament expressively envisaged that not all legislation would be capable of being made convention compliant at times it would be possible at times it would be impossible.
The European court of justice dictates that member states, before the European law, obey the practice of the ECJ. The idea of EU law supremacy over national law however, has not been accepted by all states. Therefore, the most sensitive question is whether EU law has supreme powers over the national constitutions as well. EU members therefore face a constitutional challenge of being integrated.
The autonomy of the EU legal order is so significant to the nature of EU because it is the only guarantee that union law will not be watered down by interaction with national law that is going to be applied uniformly throughout Europe. This is why concepts of union law are interpreted in view of the objectives of the EU legal order and of the EU in general.