The analytical inventory of 323 additional procedural files from the archives of the Court of Justice of the European Union is now available in the database of the HAEU. The files pertain to 385 cases referred to the CJEU in 1989. Four particularly significant judgments emerging from these cases concerning important principles of EU law such as the primacy of EU law, indirect effect, and the freedom of movement, are summarised below.
Primacy of EU Law
The principle of primacy of EU law over national law is one of the key elements of the EU legal order. As it is not enshrined in the EU Treaties, it has been elaborated over time by the case law of the CJEU.
Two especially significant cases in this regard were referred to the Court in 1989: The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others (C-213/89), and The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others (C-221/89. The cases are known as Factortame I and II, respectively.
In Factortame I, Factortame Ltd, a Spanish-owned company, challenged the UK's Merchant Shipping Act of 1988 that restricted foreign-owned vessels from registering in the UK, thus limiting their fishing rights. Factortame argued that the Act violated the EU law principles of non-discrimination as well as the right for EU citizens and companies to establish or participate in businesses anywhere in the EU.
The UK courts had initially doubts whether they could suspend the Shipping Act, which was an Act of Parliament, to uphold EU law. The House of Lords referred the case to the Court, which ruled that national courts must set aside national laws, which might prevent, even temporarily, EU rules from having full force and effect. If a national court, seized with a dispute which is governed by EU Law, is prevented - by a rule of national law - from granting interim measures which would ensure the full effectiveness of the rights guaranteed by EU Law, then the full effectiveness of EU law would be jeopardized. Following this, the House of Lords suspended the restrictive provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act.
Case C-221/89, or Factortame II, continued with the company’s legal challenge to the UK's Merchant Shipping Act 1988, following the principles established in Factortame I. Here the company challenged the Act with regard to its restrictions on the registration and operation of foreign-owned vessels (in this case, Spanish-owned) in the UK, arguing that it was a breach of EU law.
The UK referred the case to the Court for Judicial review so that they could decide on this issue. The court ruled in favor of Factortame Ltd, declaring that the 1988 Act indeed violated EU principles of non-discrimination and freedom of establishment.
Indirect effect
Indirect effect is a principle of European Union law that requires national courts to interpret national law as much as possible in conformity with the provisions of EU law. This principle was notably confirmed in the Court’s decision on Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA (C-106/89).
In this case, Marleasing SA had filed a lawsuit in Spain against La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA, arguing that the latter was established for the sole purpose of defrauding creditors. If that was demonstrated to be true, the contract establishing the company would be nullified according to Spanish law. The Spanish court referred the case to the CJEU because the Spanish law appeared to be in conflict with some of the provisions of Directive 68/151/EEC, which aimed at harmonising company law across the EU.
The legal question concerned whether the Directive required national courts to interpret national law in conformity to the Directive’s objectives, even if the national law predated the directive. In its judgement, the Court ruled that national courts are required to interpret domestic law as far as possible in a manner that aligns with the wording and purpose of the relevant EU directive. This principle applies regardless of whether the national law was enacted before or after the directive.
The Marleasing judgment significantly advanced the doctrine of indirect effect, ensuring that national laws are interpreted consistently with EU directives to achieve harmonisation across member states.
Free movement of workers
The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen (Case C-292/89) was an important case dealing with the interpretation of the free movement of workers within the European Community, specifically the right of residence for those seeking employment.
Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen, a Belgian citizen, had been living in the United Kingdom (UK) and had been seeking work when the UK authorities ordered his deportation on the basis that he had failed to find employment within the six month period stipulated by national law. Antonissen challenged this, claiming that it violated his rights under EU law.
The UK’s High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, referred the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether the right to free movement of workers under Article 48 of the EEC Treaty (now Article 45 TFEU) included the right for an individual to reside in a member state for a reasonable period while seeking employment, and whether a member state could place a time limit on this right.
The CJEU ruled that the free movement of workers does in fact include the right for individuals to reside in another member state for a reasonable period to seek employment. The Court acknowledged that a six-month period could be considered reasonable but suggested that the right to stay could extend beyond this period if the individual was actively seeking employment and had a real chance of finding work.
This judgment confirmed that job seekers in the EU have the right to seek employment across member states without facing undue restrictions.
The historical archives of the Court at the HAEU
Researchers may consult the historical archives of the European Court of Justice under special access conditions. The inventory of holdings for the CJEU is available here.