Exam (elaborations)
EU Law With Complete Solutions Latest Update
- Course
- Institution
EU Law With Complete Solutions Latest Update
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Schoolflix
Reviews received
Content preview
EU Law With Complete Solutions Latest UpdateCosta v ENEL (1964) - correct answers (Supremacy of EU law). Established that MSs had agreed to prioritised
EU law above their own in certain areas.
Macarthys v Smith (1979) - correct answers (The effect of the EU Treaty on the application of UK law in the
Courts). If UK legislation is deficient or is inconsistent with EU law, then the UK are bound to give priority to EU
law.
Fedesa (1990) - correct answers (Proportionality). Three part test for proportionality:
1. is the measure suitable to achieve a legitimate aim?
2. is the measure necessary to achieve that aim?
3. does the measure have an excessive effect on the applicant's interests?.
Factortame (No.2) (1991) - correct answers (Supremacy of EU law and conflicting national law). Where there is
conflict between a national law and EU law, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is modified by s2(4) ECA
1972 and will allow the conflicting domestic law to be disregarded.
(Free movement of workers - definition of establishment). "The actual pursuit of an economic activity through
a fixed establishment in another MS for an indefinite period".
Van Gend (1963) - correct answers (Direct effect of EU law in national courts). EU law has the capacity to be
relied upon directly by individuals in the national court. Direct effect is the justiciability of EU laws that cover
rights on individuals, which national courts have a duty to protect.
(Art 30 TFEU - the imposition of an increased custom duty upon goods being imported into the Netherlands).
This case established that there can be no exception to the rule that there can be no taxes at borders between
MSs. The goods in question were reclassified by the Dutch government so they become subject to a higher
rate of duty. The importers attempted to use Art 30 to challenge the new duty in national courts. HELD - the
CJEU ruled that as the new duty imposed a higher rate of import duty on the importer, it was a direct
,contravention of what is now Art 30 , and that this Art provided a right which could be enforced by individual
EU citizens.
The CJEU said that the applicant could enforce their argument against the Dutch government if the following
criteria were fulfilled:
- if the prohibition was clear and unconditional
- if the prohibition imposed a duty without any discretion given to the MSs
- if the prohibition produced direct effects between MSs and citizens (for the criteria for direct effect, see Van
Duyn).
Van Duyn (1974) - correct answers (Criteria for establishing whether a provision of EU law has direct effect).
FACTS? In order for a provision of EU law to have direct effect, it must:
- be clear and precise
- be unconditional/without exceptions
- not require any implementation by the MSs
Defrenne (1976) - correct answers (Direct effect). Here, a female air steward claimed equal pay with a male
cabin crew member. Could she rely on Art (ex) 119 EEC in the national court? Was it directly effect?
1. Clear and precise - yes. The world 'principle' indicated the fundamental nature of the right to pay. It could
not be reduced to the level of a vague declaration.
2. Unconditional - yes. MSs are bound to ensure and maintain the principle of equal pay.
3. No further action - Yes. The wording of it imposed on States a duty to bring about specific result to be
mandatorily achieved within a fixed period.
Ex-Art 119 EEC was directly effective even though sone MSs had not discharged their duty.
This case also established that regulations are capable of both vertical and horizontal direct effect.
Foster v British Gas (1990) - correct answers (What is 'the Member State' for the purposes of Art 288 TFEU?)
The notion of the 'State' applies to a body, whatever its legal form, which is:
,1. made responsible for providing a public service by a measure adopted by the State
2. the public service in question is under the control of the State, and
3. has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations
between individuals.
Pfeiffer (2004) - correct answers (Indirect effect). The requirement for national law to be interpreted in
conformity with Union law is inherent in the stem of the Treaty, since it permits the national court, for the
matters within its jurisdiction, to ensure the full effectiveness to Union law when it determines the dispute
before it.
Unilever (2000) - correct answers (Incidental effect). Concerned a directive which required that MSs notify the
Commission of draft technical regulations before they are adopted. Here, the national regulations had been
correctly notified but there were issues of breach of a standstill order contained in the directive. HELD - there
was a duty not he national court to refuse to apply the contravening national rules. In this case, EU law was
used as a 'sword' by one private party to impose private contractual obligations on another - this does NOT fit
in with the 'public law obligation' argument used in earlier cases.
CIA Security (1996) - correct answers (Incidental effect). Concerned a directive which required that MSs notify
the Commission of draft technical regulations before they are adopted. National regulations not complying
with notification requirements in the directive on technical standards could not be enforced against private
individuals. EU law was used as a 'shield' against State non-compliance. HELD - the inapplicable national rule
could not be relied on by one private party against another.
Marshall I (1986) - correct answers (Direct effect). Directives are NOT capable of horizontal direct effect. They
are only vertically directly effective.
Becker (1982) - correct answers (Direct effect). Where the provisions of a directive appear to be unconditional
and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the
prescribed period, be relied upon as against any national provision which is incompatible with the directive of
in so far as the provisions fine rights which individuals are able to assert against the state.
This also makes it clear the directives are vertically directly effective.
, Laval (2007) - correct answers (Freedom of services - the clash between social issues and economic issues).
FACTS. Where there is an actual or potential conflict between the internal market and labour standards in the
MSs regarded as consistent with the Union's social policies.
Here, a proportionality test was applied to balance freedom of establishment/services with non-discriminatory
'restrictions' on fundamental freedoms arising from the exercise of nationally or intentional recognised (or
constitutional) fundamental social rights that provide a bassi for justification under the general principles of
EU law.
Omega (2004) - correct answers (Push/pull effects of market integration and market regulation). Human rights
v economic integration; winners and losers; cultural diversity; non-market values. Cross-cutting principles of
market access, proportionality, and fundamental rights.
- - correct answers -
Dassonville (1974) - correct answers (The definition of an MEE). This case involved Belgian law which required
certain products (such as Scotch whisky) to be sold only if they had a certificate of origin included with them.
The traders involved in this case were prosecuted for selling Scotch whisky without a certificate, but they had
bought it from France, where no certificate was required. The issue was whether this requirement fell within
Article 34 or not.
HELD - MEEs = "All trading rules enacted by MSs which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually
or potentially, intra-State trade". Effectively means that even though the intention of a measure may not be to
create such a restriction, and even if its effect doesn't occur now but in the future/its effect is indirect not
direct, it is still unlawful.
Francovich (1991) - correct answers (State liability). Italy was found liable by the CJEU for non-implementation
of a Directive. Two months later, F & B sued Italy in the national court for damages. They had suffered loss
because, at the time their employer went into liquidation, Italy had not set up a compensation fund for the
employees of insolvent companies as required by the Directive. HELD - although the compensation provisions
were insufficiently precise to be directly effective, F & B were entitled to a remedy under Union law.
Three conditions for state liability that were reformed by Brasserie du Pecheur:
1. the rule of law infringed must have intended to confer rights on individuals
2. the breach must be 'sufficiently serious'
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Schoolflix. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.19. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
79271 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now