The Court considered that the premise from

[Roselin67]

To begin with, at a Moreover, the CJEU also refers to the supremacy [ ] of Community law which was accepted by the member states through the Treaties as a fundamental principle . Granting only specialized courts the capacity to declare incompatibility represents an extension of the effect of contrary rules that should become inapplicable ipso jure . The Court goes further and even states that such a specialized jurisdiction represents a breach of the commitments assumed by joining the European Community.

Second question: Considering the arguments in country-email-list the first answer, which this question starts is a false one, since the postponement of the entry into force of the Community act is not allowed in any case . Thus, the problem of possible retroactivity becomes irrelevant. In conclusion , through the Simmenthal II decision, the CJEU reaffirmed and clarified the features that characterize European norms: - priority application as they must be applied regardless of the internal norms with which they conflict - direct application as they do not require transposition into domestic law by local authorities. In the present case, the Italian Constitutional Court is not verifying the compatibility with.



Community law of the national norms, but with the provision of the Italian fundamental law regarding the obligations of joining the European Community. - immediate application since those entered into force cannot be postponed by the member states in order to verify the compatibility of internal rules with them (a problem that was also raised in the Costa/ENEL case). Bibliography: [ ] Summary of the European Institute in RomanLeave a reply Your email address will not be published. Mandatory fields are marked with * Comment * Name * Email * Website Save my name, email and website in this browser for the next time I comment.