EUROPEAN POLITICS FUNDAMENTALS — Chapter 5, Exercise 2
Simmenthal in Practice
====================================================================

QUESTION:
A national judge discovers that a national statute conflicts with a
directly effective EU regulation. Using the real Simmenthal
principle, explain what the judge is required to do, and what the
judge does NOT need to wait for first.

SOLUTION:

Under the Simmenthal principle (1978), the national judge is required
to set the conflicting national statute aside immediately, using the
judge's own authority in that single case, and apply the directly
effective EU regulation instead.

Critically, the judge does NOT need to wait for either of two things
that might otherwise seem like necessary first steps:

1. The national legislature repealing or amending the conflicting
   statute — the judge doesn't need the law formally taken off the
   books before declining to apply it in this case.

2. A national constitutional court (or any other higher domestic
   court) formally striking the statute down — the ordinary judge
   hearing the case doesn't need to refer the matter upward and wait
   for a ruling on the statute's own validity first.

The judge simply disapplies the conflicting national law in the case
at hand and moves forward, treating the statute as if it doesn't
exist for the purposes of resolving this dispute — even though the
statute technically remains on the books everywhere else until
someone with the power to repeal or invalidate it actually does so.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
---------------------------
The exercise specifically tests whether the reader understands that
Simmenthal's real innovation is speed and directness: it hands
ordinary national judges — not just constitutional courts or
legislatures — the power to enforce supremacy themselves, in real
time, without institutional delay. Naming both things the judge
doesn't have to wait for (legislative repeal AND constitutional-court
invalidation) shows the principle's full practical reach.