European law, national legal norms, constitution, EU law, Costa/ENEL judgment, CJEU, Nicolo judgment, CE, Constitutional Council, French Constitution, European treaties, preliminary reference, primacy of European law, national architectures, constitutional reform, protection of rights, European integration, fundamental rights, administrative judge, Arcelor case, EU directive, constitutional standards, European standards, hierarchy of internal norms, Sarran/Levacher decision, Kadi ruling, constitutional primacy, treaties, EU law primacy, French law, European Convention on Human Rights, TFUE Article 267, constructive exchange, national judges, EU law applicability, reform perspectives, strengthened conciliation, Council of State, jurisprudential example
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
The complex relationship between the French Constitution and European Union law, and the role of the administrative judge in reconciling the two.
Extract
[...] a The constitution is superior to any other norm, including European ones. According to the principles laid down by the Constitutional Council, the French Constitution is superior to European treaties that require France to comply with European law and directives: this point is most often implemented by the administrative judge and, if necessary, referred to a higher decision-making level. Thus, we can recall decision No. 2004-496 DC of June which describes the constitution as the supreme norm and recalls the need to respect the « essential conditions for the exercise of national sovereignty in any legal transposition. [...]
[...] Therefore, it is necessary to establish a closer cooperation between national and European jurisdictions to alleviate these tensions. A constitutional reform could also clarify the place of EU law in the hierarchy of internal norms, while ensuring better protection of French constitutional rights, even if the risk of rejection remains particularly important. In this spirit, the administrative judge will remain a key actor in this conciliation, which is called to evolve in line with the transformations of the EU and the ongoing legal changes in France. [...]
[...] To what extent can the administrative judge reconcile the Constitution and European Union law? Introduction The relationship and, to a certain extent, the reconciliation between the constitution (French) and European law is a recurring issue for national jurisdictions, particularly administrative ones. The Council of State is regularly faced with this question. France is committed to the treaties related to the European Union (TUE and TFUE). These induce the primacy of European law over national architectures (including constitutional ones): this can be illustrated by a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through the Costa / ENEL judgment in 1964. [...]
[...] This point is not limited to this law in that we find similar considerations regarding the European Convention on Human Rights, with its corollary on the rule of law. We can cite, as a jurisprudential example, the Kadi ruling (2008), as a decision that has reinforced the taking into account of fundamental rights in the legal order of the Union, but also sometimes creating tensions with national guarantees. In France, the matter is quite clearly bounded in that the protection of these rights is based on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (DDHC) of 1789 and also on the preamble to the 1946 Constitution: both of which are part of the block of constitutionality." c. [...]
[...] We will now address this point. c. The preliminary reference to the CJEU: a tool for a better understanding? It sometimes happens that complex interpretation questions pose a real problem within the French administrative order. Thus, in order to avoid a conflict between the constitution and European law, the CE can resort to the procedure known as the preliminary reference, which aims to ask interpretation questions to the CJEU in order to better define the scope of application of a European legal element in France. [...]
