EUROPEAN POLITICS FUNDAMENTALS — Chapter 1, Exercise 2
Applying Costa v. ENEL
====================================================================

QUESTION:
A member state passes a national law that directly conflicts with an
EU regulation issued under the EU's own exclusive competence over
trade policy. Using the real Costa v. ENEL precedent, explain which
law a national court is legally required to apply, and why.

SOLUTION:

A national court is legally required to apply the EU regulation, not
the conflicting national law.

The real Costa v. ENEL ruling (15 July 1964) established the doctrine
of supremacy: where a genuine conflict exists between EU law and a
member state's own national law, national courts must resolve that
conflict in favor of EU law. This case is a particularly strong
example because it involves an area of EXCLUSIVE EU competence (trade
policy) — precisely the category of policy area the member states
have already, by treaty, agreed only the EU itself may legislate on.
A national law attempting to override an EU regulation in an area
the member state no longer has the legal authority to regulate
independently has no real force in the resulting conflict.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
---------------------------
The exercise deliberately combines two things from the chapter at
once: the supremacy principle from Costa v. ENEL, and the exclusive-
competence category from Exercise 1's own framework. A weaker answer
would cite supremacy alone; a stronger answer (like this one) notices
that exclusive competence makes the case for EU law's primacy even
more clear-cut than it would be in a merely shared-competence area,
where a national law might legitimately fill a genuine regulatory gap
the EU hasn't yet occupied.