jump to navigation


This is the page for Caroline Bradley’s EU law class at the University of Miami. This class will be offered in Spring 2016 and will meet on Wednesdays and Fridays from 11.00 am to 12.20pm in room F108.

Week 5: February 8-12 Next week we will continue working on Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 2 (EU Law Within National Legal Systems). We will work through this material relatively slowly. So, please prepare to page 21 for Wednesday (although I think it is likely that we don’t get to or don;’t get too far with the directives material on Wednesday). I expect it will take us a while to think through the horizontal and vertical direct effect issues but please read to page 33 for Friday.

In thinking about direct effect, think about what the legal criteria are for a Treaty provision to produce direct effects. Is it clear what the criteria are? Have they changed over time?

McCulloch v Maryland was mentioned in class this week. Compare this passage from that case to the excerpt from Costa in your materials (the European Community is characterized in a similar way (limited powers but supreme within its sphere of action) but not on the basis of any express reference in the Treaty to supremacy) :

If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this — that the Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result necessarily from its nature. It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, decided it by saying, “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof,” “shall be the supreme law of the land,” and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, “anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Because of the 3rd DCA visit on Friday February 19th our class that day has been rescheduled to 2.00 pm in Room F108.

Have a good weekend!


1. O. Jean Strickland - February 3, 2016

A thought about the question of why the Court of Justice is concerned about EU accession to the European Convention:

Apart from asserting their supremacy, human rights issues may affect and become intertwined with EU Internal Market issues. The human rights issues involved in the refugee crisis, for example, may have significant consequences to the availability and price of goods and services. While the convention’s unilateral focus on promoting human rights is admirable and an ideal to which all should subscribe, there may be a need for balancing the tension between human rights and the economic well being sought for all through the Internal Market. The EU Court of Justice would rightly want to ensure the clarity of their supremacy in deciding the outcome of such balancing.