This case note examines the recent European Court of Justice Ruling in the case of Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Siochana v Workplace Relations Commission and Ronald Boyle & Others (Notice Parties), C-378/17  (4th December 2018).

What is the background to this case?

The Irish Supreme Court referred a question for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as to whether a national body, which was established by law for the purpose of ensuring enforcement of EU law in a particular area, has the ability to disapply a rule of national law that is contrary to EU law.

The notice parties, Ronald Boyle and two others, were excluded from the procedure of recruitment of new police officers to An Garda Siochana, on the ground that they were above the maximum age for recruitment laid down by national regulations. This began a sequence of hearings nationally prior to the referral to the CJEU.

Equality Tribunal

Mr. Boyle and Others complained to the Equality Tribunal (whose functions have since been taken over by the Workplace Relations Commission) that their exclusion from the recruitment process constituted age discrimination contrary to EU Directive 2000/78 (Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation) and contrary to the Employment Equality Acts, which transposed that Directive in Ireland.

High Court

The Minister of Justice and Equality challenged the jurisdiction of the Equality Tribunal to disapply a provision of national law on the basis that the measure which imposed the maximum age for recruitment to the national police force was a measure of national law, meaning that only courts established under the Constitution of Ireland had jurisdiction to decide, if necessary, to disapply such a provision.

The High Court upheld the Minister’s action, and made an order prohibiting the Equality Tribunal from ruling on the complaints of Mr. Boyle and Others on the grounds that the Equality Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adopt a legally binding decision concluding that national law was incompatible with EU law, due to the fact that such a power was expressly reserved to the High Court under Article 34 of the Constitution of Ireland.

The Equality Tribunal appealed against this order to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court took the view that, as a matter of national law, the Equality Tribunal, now the WRC, lacks jurisdiction to disapply provisions of national law that it considers to be contrary to EU law. The Supreme Court asserted that only the High Court enjoys such jurisdiction and may, on that basis, properly have an action brought before it which, if upheld, would entail disapplying a provision of national law.

The Supreme Court was concerned as to whether such a division of jurisdiction was consistent with EU Law and decided to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on that aspect.

What was the question referred to the CJEU?

The Supreme Court’s question was whether a national body established by law such as the WRC has jurisdiction to decide to disapply a rule of national law that is contrary to EU law, in circumstances where the Member State has expressly designated jurisdiction on the High Court in cases where the question arises as to whether a provision of national law is compatible with EU Law or not.

What were the matters considered by the Court in making its preliminary ruling?

The CJEU noted that under Irish law, there is a division of jurisdiction between the High Court and the Workplace Relations Commission:-

1. The WRC has jurisdiction to rule on complaints against measures/ decisions allegedly incompatible with Directive 2000/78.
2. The High Court has jurisdiction where the upholding of such a complaint would require a national provision to be disapplied or struck down.

In deciding on the question for preliminary ruling, the CJEU agreed with its Advocate General that a distinction must be drawn between the power to disapply a provision of national law and the much broader power to strike down such a provision.

The CJEU pointed out that it has repeatedly held, that the duty to disapply national legislation that is contrary to EU law is owed not only by national courts, but also by all organs of the State - including administrative authorities - called upon, within the exercise of their respective powers, to apply EU law.  It follows that the principle of primacy of EU law requires not only the courts but all the bodies of the Member States to give full effect to EU rules.

It was noted that the Workplace Relations Commission is a body established by the Irish legislature for the purpose of satisfying Ireland’s obligation under Article 9 of Directive 2000/78 to ensure enforcement of the principle of non-discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Therefore, if the WRC has before it a dispute involving such a complaint of discrimination, the principle of primacy of EU law requires the WRC to provide the legal protection which individuals derive from EU law and to ensure that EU law is fully effective. The CJEU stated that rules of national law cannot be allowed to undermine the unity and effectiveness of EU law. Thus, those bodies must not request or await the prior setting aside of such a provision or such case-law by legislative or constitutional means.

What was the decision/outcome of this case?

Ultimately, the European Court determined that the primacy of EU law means that national courts, and other organs of the State called upon within the exercise of their powers to apply EU law, have a duty to give full effect to those provisions and, if necessary, refuse to apply a conflicting provision of national law.  In essence, the WRC has an obligation to ensure that EU law is fully effective and may disapply any provision of national legislation that may be contrary to EU law.

Why is this case of interest? What are the practical implications?

This ruling may have significant implications for Irish employment law.  The ruling suggests that WRC Adjudication Officers may need to consider, in all cases, whether a provision of EU law has been correctly transposed into Irish law and if not, although the WRC may not “strike down” a national provision it considers is incompatible with EU law, it may lawfully disapply the national provision and the WRC Adjudication Officer will instead have to give full effect to the provision under EU law which was intended to be transposed into national law.  At a time when the WRC is already under pressure, this additional responsibility and jurisdiction is a further challenge for the WRC and raises the question of whether the WRC has the resources and whether its Adjudication Officers have the training to meet this responsibility.