Was incompatible with European Law on
Equal treatment for male and female employees.
The Act gave fewer rights to part-time workers than full-time workers.
As most part-time workers were female, this was held to discriminate on the basis of sex.
UK government was forced to change the law, and greatly improve rights of part-time workers.
Legislation became the product of three European institutions:
The commission,
The council of ministers and the
Parliament.
By the means of different legislative procedures established by the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, all of the institutions play a part in implementing legislation these being:
Consultation ART 249, EC TREATY 1957,
Co-decision ART 252,
Cooperation ART 252 and
Assent procedure.
Treaties became the highest source of EU law, laying out the general aims of the communities and them themselves creating rights and obligations.
The case of Van Gend en Loos (1963) decided that if a treaty provision is unconditional, clear and precise it leaves member states no discretion on implementing it.
Therefore it could be used by individuals in their own national courts, just as if it came from a parliament statute. Therefore a treaty has direct effect
For example, Art 139 (119 before Amsterdam treaty) EEC treaty provides men and women shall receive equal pay for equal work,
In Marcarthys v smith (1979)
Article 139 was held to give a woman in the UK the right to claim the same wages as her male predecessor in her job, even though she had no such right under the
UK equal pay legislation passed in 1970.
Treaty provisions can be statements of intent or policy requiring detailed legislation to be made by member states, or can establish clear rights and duties.
Article 249 of EC treaty now provides that European Parliament, Council and Commission may make three types of binding secondary legislation:
A regulation;
Applies to all member states within the community, without the need for detailed legislation to be made. Regulations must be applied even if a member state has passed a conflicting piece of legislation.
Directives;
Set out broad objectives, leaving member states to create own detailed legislation, within specified time limit. Directives have direct effect. For example
VAN DUYN V HOME OFFICE (1974)
Home office refused entry into the UK for Van Duyn because of her religious group, the scientologists.
Van Duyn argued this was contrary to provisions in Treaty of Rome, free movement of people.
A directive said public policy could only be invoked on the basis of personal conduct. The case was referred to the ECJ, which found the obligation was clear and unconditional, and so created enforceable rights.
There are two types of direct effect: vertical direct effect, against an arm of the state, or horizontal direct effect: against individuals.
In Italy v Francovich (1992) The directive required states to set up a scheme to ensure employees received outstanding wages if their employer became insolvent. Italian government failed to set up such a scheme. The ECJ held Francovich had a right to damages from the Italian Government.
A decision;
May be addressed to a state a person or company and is binding on the recipitant.
The ECJ has the task of supervising application of EU law and so can create case law. ECJ is now the highest court in the hierarchy. It has a judicial and supervisory role.
Judicial role ECJ hears proceedings against member states brought by commission or other member states, involving alleged breeches of community law.
Supervisory role; article 234 (177) of treaty of Rome provides any court/tribunal can refer a question on community law for interpretation by the ECJ. ECJ decisions are binding on all member states.
The most striking recognition of the supremacy of Community law over English Law can be seen in the Factortame case concerning the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 which
Required British- registered fishing boats fishing for British quotas to be British owned and managed.
The British statute was held to contravene the treaty provisions prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
ART 177 (234) EC treaty.
Thus community law prevailed.
UK was then obliged to compensate any of their individual citizens who suffer loss in consequence of the breech of EC law.
Some would argue that Parliament has therefore relinquished its sovereignty. However Parliament was a voluntary signatory to the treaties, therefore the process could always be reversed. Should national law expressly, deliberately conflict with European Communities Act 1972, traditional view of Parliamentary supremacy should prevail.