European dimensions

In the cases discussed in this article, the UKSC set out to achieve the straightforward result required of it: to give effect to directly applicable EU law and interpret domestic law so far as possible consistently with EU law. Two cases relating to intellectual property, including one in which the UKSC deferred to the formally non-binding decision of the European Patent Office (EPO), provide striking examples of the importance and effectiveness of harmonising laws within the EU and of the openness of the UKSC to EU influence. They illustrate the extent to which applying EU law in the UK has become a smooth process based on a dialogue between the two systems. But another recent case, Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority,2 which concerned an entirely different area of EU law, casts some doubt on this conclusion. Although the UKSC similarly acknowledged the need for harmony across the two systems, it made the perhaps surprising observation that EU framework decisions are not binding on it, and in some respects departed from the CJEU's approach.