The hierarchy of EU law, Treaties to RTS¶
Article 288 TFEU. Where each EU rule sits, from the Treaties every Member State signs down to a technical standard the European Supervisory Authorities draft for one product line. Every box carries the article it lives at and a worked example, so the whole thing reads without clicking or hovering anything.
The thesis: primary law sets the powers, secondary law uses them, and technical standards pin down the numbers and templates. Everything else is interpretation or guidance. The pink border marks the box that anchors the rest.
The post that goes with this page: Which regulation wins? There is a rule for that.
The hierarchy at a glance¶
The three principles, in detail¶
The band at the foot of the diagram names three principles and the order they are consulted in. This is that band in full. They are not a tier of their own — they are the rules for resolving overlaps within and across the tiers, developed by the Court of Justice in its case law. The EUR-Lex glossary on the hierarchy of norms has the official EU framing.
Lex superior
The higher-ranked rule wins. EU primary law beats EU secondary law; EU law beats conflicting national law. In EU law this is the principle of primacy, anchored in Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (1970) and reaffirmed many times since.
→ a Member State cannot pass a law that contradicts a directly applicable EU regulation.
Lex specialis
Lex specialis derogat legi generali. When two rules could apply and one is more specific to the situation than the other, the more specific rule prevails for that situation. The general rule stays on the books, but for the case at hand the specific one is the rule that applies. The classic formulation is that the special rule covers everything the general rule covers, plus at least one further element.
→ CJEU Commission v United Kingdom, C-582/08: Art. 2(1) of the Thirteenth VAT Directive 86/560 is "a lex specialis as compared with Articles 170 and 171" of the VAT Directive 2006/112 (para. 35).
Lex posterior
When two rules of the same rank collide and neither is more specific, the later one prevails. The presumption is that the legislature knew the earlier law and meant to override it.
→ the Digital Omnibus on AI, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, amends the AI Act on specified points; on those points the Omnibus displaces the earlier text.
The one that decides real work: for financial entities covered by DORA, DORA is the sector-specific act, so the NIS2 risk-management, reporting and supervision provisions do not stack on top (NIS2 Art. 4(1) and (2), Recital 28). That is lex specialis doing a day's work: it is the difference between one incident-reporting regime and two.
If there is no actual conflict, both norms apply in parallel and the more specific one is simply read first, as a matter of judicial economy. The order only bites when the two cannot both be satisfied.
Worked examples¶
Each row is the binding instrument at the tier it lives at, with its real citation.
| Tier | Instrument | Real example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 / Primary | Treaty | Treaty of Lisbon (2007), Art. 288 TFEU in its current form |
| 2 / Regulation | Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 | DORA, applies across the EU from 17 Jan 2025 |
| 2 / Regulation | Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 | AI Act, staged application from 2 Feb 2025 |
| 2 / Directive | Directive (EU) 2022/2555 | NIS2, transposition deadline 17 Oct 2024 |
| 2 / Delegated | Comm. Delegated Reg. (EU) 2024/1772 | DORA, classification of ICT-related incidents |
| 2 / RTS | Comm. Delegated Reg. (EU) 2024/1773 | DORA RTS: ICT third-party service provider policy (Art. 28) |
| 2 / ITS | Comm. Implementing Reg. (EU) 2024/2956 | DORA ITS: register-of-information templates |
| 3 / National | NIS2 national implementations | Germany: NIS2UmsuCG, in force 6 Dec 2025. France: not transposed, referred to the CJEU Jul 2026 |
Reading order if you only have time for one of them: the Treaty first, since it sets the powers, then the Regulation or Directive at the tier your work touches, then the RTS for the numbers and the ITS for the templates. Everything else is guidance or local implementation.
Verify before you rely on it
This is a practitioner's map, not legal advice. Every article and case reference here was checked against the primary text on EUR-Lex, but check the current version before you rely on it operationally. National transposition status in particular moves.
Where to go next¶
- DORA, the most developed branch, and the one the RTS and ITS examples come from
- NIS2, and the Art. 4 carve-out that makes DORA lex specialis for financial entities
- EU AI Act, amended by the Digital Omnibus cited above
- Worked examples, where these tiers turn into artefacts
Primary sources¶
- TFEU Art. 288, Art. 290, Art. 291
- EUR-Lex: hierarchy of norms and types of EU law
- Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (1970) — primacy
- C-582/08, Commission v United Kingdom (2010) — lex specialis, para. 35
- Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) — Art. 4 and Recital 28 for the sector-specific carve-out
- Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (DORA)
- Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 — Digital Omnibus on AI
- EBA Single Rulebook — where RTS and ITS are published