The foundation of EU law lies in the vision of a unified European market, where the free movement of labour, goods, services, and capital surpasses national borders.¹ While the function has extended beyond the economic domain, a significant part of EU law involves actions facilitating this free movement. With regard to Article 20 TFEU, it is only more recently that the free movement of individuals has been embodied in the concept of Union citizenship.² It has started to disentangle from economic activities, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has recently embedded an explicit fundamental rights component into EU law in accordance with Article 6 TEU.³ For the purpose of its objectives, EU law replaces specific national provisions, either by positive re-regulation through EU legislation or the mere removal of national trade barriers, regarded as negative re-regulation.⁴ The CJEU stands as the ultimate decision-maker in conflicts between national rules and European rules, commonly supporting European rules over national ones.⁵ Opposition to the CJEU primarily stems from resistance to the replacement of national rules, motivated by reasons ranging from self-interest in the distributional outcomes of national rules to broader concerns regarding legal traditions and economic institutions.

Implementing EU law depends on the willingness of its subjects to comply, which can sometimes be questionable for the reasons mentioned. Compared to other international legal systems, the EU has a complex set of mechanisms to enforce EU law. Regarding Article 4(3) TEU, national authorities are legally bound to implement EU law and apply their administrative actions accordingly.⁶ Failure can lead to legal action, either by the European Commission or by affected citizens. In cases where the Commission enforces EU law, member states potentially confront financial penalties for continued non-compliance for failing to transfer EU directives into national law, in accordance with Article 260 TFEU.⁷ Member states can be held financially responsible for costs incurred by citizens and companies due to failures in correctly implementing EU law. EU institutions, particularly the Commission, aim to de-escalate conflicts and avoid excessive use of certain enforcement tools.⁸ Citizens and companies often invoke EU law in cases before national courts, either against national authorities or other citizens and companies. Judicial enforcement of EU law is a routine practice, and there is no disagreement among Member States about the principles governing this enforcement regime, which have been reinforced with nearly every treaty change in the past.⁹

References

1. University of Essex Online, EU Law September 23, Unit 8, Lecture “Introduction to the Internal Market”
2. TFEU, Article 20
3. TEU, Article 6
4. Larsson O and Naurin D, “Judicial independence and political uncertainty: how the risk of override affects the Court of Justice of the EU” (2016) International Organization 70, 377-408 https://www-cambridge-org.uniessexlib.idm.oclc.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/judicial-independence-and-political-uncertainty-how-the-risk-of-override-affects-the-court-of-justice-of-the-eu/99E9DDF41212B57EC14FE880EA1B73BF accessed 24 October
5. Ibid
6. TEU, Article 4(3)
7. TFEU, Article 260
8. Falkner, G. “Fines against member states: An effective new tool in EU infringement proceedings?” (2016) Comp Eur Polit 14, 36–52 https://doi-org.uniessexlib.idm.oclc.org/10.1057/cep.2015.8 accessed 24 October
9. Kelemen RD, “The Court of Justice of the European Union in the twenty-first century” (2016) Law and Contemporary Problems 79, 117-140. Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol79/iss1/5