Flaminio Costa v ENEL Case 6/64, [1964] ECR 585
Facts
Italy nationalised its electricity industry and created ENEL. Flaminio Costa, who was both an electricity consumer and a shareholder in an affected company, challenged an electricity bill. He argued that the nationalisation conflicted with provisions of the EEC Treaty. The Italian proceedings raised a constitutional conflict because the nationalisation legislation post-dated the law giving domestic effect to the Treaty. The national court referred questions to the Court of Justice, which had to address the relationship between Community obligations and later national legislation.
Legal Issue
Could later national legislation take priority over Community law, and how should the national court obtain and apply the Court of Justice’s interpretation of the Treaty?
Held
The Court rejected the proposition that a unilateral later national measure could override Community law. The Treaty had created a distinct legal order, integrated into Member States’ legal systems, through which they had limited sovereign powers in defined fields. Allowing later domestic legislation to defeat Community obligations would undermine reciprocity, uniformity and the legal basis of the Community. The Court supplied interpretations of the Treaty provisions raised, distinguishing those capable of conferring enforceable rights from provisions operating through institutional obligations. It did not itself annul the Italian statute or treat every Treaty provision as directly effective. The national court remained responsible for resolving the domestic dispute.
⭐ Legal Principle
Within the Community legal order, national legislation cannot override Community law merely because it is later in time. Supremacy preserves the uniform and binding character of the obligations Member States accepted under the Treaty.
Significance
Costa is the foundational supremacy judgment and complements Van Gend en Loos on direct effect. The doctrines are related but distinct: priority does not answer every question about enforceability. For UK constitutional study, Costa describes the EU perspective during membership. The domestic effect of EU-derived law after withdrawal must be established through the relevant UK legislation and arrangements, rather than assumed from Costa alone.
Common exam questions about this case
How is supremacy different from direct effect?
Supremacy addresses priority where legal rules conflict. Direct effect asks whether a particular provision can be invoked and applied in national proceedings. Costa’s rejection of later national law overriding Community obligations did not mean that every Treaty article independently supplied an enforceable individual right in the electricity-bill dispute.
Did the Court of Justice strike down the Italian statute?
It interpreted Community law through the preliminary-reference procedure. The national court then had to resolve the domestic proceedings consistently with that interpretation. Describing the Court as directly annulling the Italian statute confuses a reference on EU law with an annulment action against an EU institutional act.
Why was the later date of the Italian legislation insufficient?
Member States had accepted reciprocal obligations within a common legal order. If each could defeat them through later national legislation, uniform application and the Treaty’s binding force would collapse. The Court therefore rejected ordinary domestic later-statute reasoning as a basis for overriding Community law.