Editing European Court of Justice (section)

==Landmark decisions==
{{see also|List of European Court of Justice rulings}}
Over time ECJ developed two essential rules on which the legal order rests: [[direct effect]] and [[supremacy (European Union law)|primacy]]. The court first ruled on the direct effect of primary legislation in a case that, though technical and tedious, raised a fundamental principle of Union law. In ''[[Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen]]'' (1963), a Dutch transport firm brought a complaint against Dutch customs for increasing the duty on a product imported from Germany.<ref>'NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration'' (case 26/62), judgment 5 February 1963 {{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:1963:1}}</ref> The court ruled that the Community constitutes a new legal order, the subjects of which consist of not only the [[European Union Member States|Member States]] but also their nationals. Consequently [[European Union law|Community law]] may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which national courts are bound to protect.<ref>{{Cite book|last=de Witte|first=Bruno|title=The Past and Future of Eu Law: The Classics of EU Law Revisited on the 50th Anniversary of the Rome Treaty|publisher=Hart Publishing|year=2010|isbn=978-1-84113-712-4|editor-last=Maduro|editor-first=Miguel|chapter=The Continuous Significance of ''Van Gend en Loos''|editor-last2=Azoulai|editor-first2=Loïc}}</ref> The principle of direct effect would have had little impact if Union law did not supersede national law. Without supremacy the Member States could simply ignore EU rules. In ''[[Costa v ENEL]]'' (1964), the court ruled that member states had definitively transferred sovereign rights to the Community and Union law could not be overridden by domestic law.<ref>Desmond Dinan, ''Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration'', pp. 292–293.</ref>

Another early landmark case was ''Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium'' (1964), the "Dairy Products" case.<ref>''Commission of the European Economic Community v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Kingdom of Belgium'' (joined cases 90/63 and 91/63), judgement of 13 November 1964 ({{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:1964:80}})</ref> In that decision the Court comprehensively ruled out any use by the Member States of the retaliatory measures commonly permitted by general international law within the European Economic Community. That decision is often thought to be the best example of the European legal order's divergence with ordinary international law.<ref>J. H. H. Weiler, "The Transformation of Europe" (1991) 100 ''Yale Law Journal'' 2403–2483, 2422 and ft 42</ref> ''Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium'' also has a logical connection with the nearly contemporaneous ''Van Gend en Loos'' and ''Costa v ENEL'' decisions, as arguably it is the doctrines of direct effect and supremacy that allow the European legal system to forgo any use of retaliatory enforcement mechanisms by the Member States.<ref>W. Phelan, "The Troika: The Interlocking Roles of ''Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium'', ''Van Gend en Loos'' and ''Costa v ENEL'' in the Creation of the European Legal Order" (2015) 21 (1) ''European Law Journal'' 116–135; Phelan, William (2016). "Supremacy, Direct Effect, and Dairy Products in the Early History of European law". ''International Journal of Constitutional Law'' 14: 6–25.</ref> Links between the direct effect doctrine and the suppression of inter-state retaliation between the EU member states can be found in many of the landmark early decisions of the European Court of Justice, and in the writings of the influential French judge, [[Robert Lecourt]], perhaps the most important member of the Court between 1962 and 1976.<ref>William Phelan, ''Great Judgments of the European Court of Justice: Rethinking the Landmark Decisions of the Foundational Period'' (Cambridge, 2019)</ref>

Further, in the 1991 case ''[[Francovich v Italy]]'', the ECJ established that Member States could be liable to pay compensation to individuals who suffered a loss by reason of the Member State's failure to [[transposition (law)|transpose]] an EU [[directive (European Union)|directive]] into national law.<ref>''Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic'' (Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90), judgment 19 November 1991 {{ECLI|ECLI:EU:C:1991:428}}</ref>