Case uitwerking
Case Law Summary - Principles and Foundations of EU Law
Summary of ALL cases for the exam Principles and Foundations for the EU law master.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 55 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 55 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Week 1: Autonomy of EU LawVan Gend & Loos
What is case about
● Direct effect of EU law = individuals may claim rights directly under EU law and enforce EU law
before national courts
Facts
● Van Gend en Loos imported chemicals from Western Germany to the Netherlands
● → were asked to pay import taxes (tax was higher than on earlier imports)
● Argument Van Gend en Loos
○ Dutch customs duties on a product imported from West Germany is in violation of Article 12
of EEC
■ → prohibited MS from introducing new customs duties on products originating from
other MS + raising existing customs duties
Question: Whether ART 12 has direct effect before national courts (whether nationals may claim individual
rights which the court must protect)
Decision/rule/judgement
● =: yes → article 12 of EEC Treaty had direct application in national law
○ → inaugurating the doctrine of direct effect in EU law and empowering individuals to enforce
rights derived from EU law before national courts
○ Community → new legal order of international law for → MS limited sovereign rights
■ EU law → imposes obligations on individuals but also confer them rights
■ → individuals can plead
■ EU law could be enforced by individuals through national courts system of MS
Conclusion
● EU law could be enforced by individuals through the national courts system of a Member State
● Van Gend en Loos→ direct effect
○ Direct effect =
■ individuals may claim rights directly under EU law and enforce EU law before
national courts
○ Introduction of separation of national law & EU law
○ CJEU
■ We are an autonomous legal order
■ → meaning that EU separates itself from national constitutional law = not
dependent on national constitutions
■ International law instead = Dependent on national constitutional law
, Costa ENEL
What is case about
● Case → one year after Van Gend en Loos
● Principle of Supremacy EU law → now fundamental principle of EU law
○ Meaning →
■ EU law has direct effect and must be applied by the national courts of member
states, even if it conflicts with national law
Issue
● Should EC law be considered as prevailing over national law?
● Whether the primacy of EU law is dependent on the constitutions of the MS or whether EU law itself
may provide the source of such primacy?
Facts
● 1962 → italian government passed Act to nationalise electricity industry → increase prices
● MR costa →
○ Italian citizen with shares in the Italian electricity supply company Edisonvolta
○ he said that the nationalisation was in conflict with article 37 of EEC Treaty
● Case referred to italian constitutional court
○ EEC treaty incorporated into italian law in 1958 → thus → could not prevail over electricity
nationalisation (1962)
○ Dismissed → national law took precedence over EU law
Decision/ Rule/Judgement ECJ
● EEC treaty →
○ created own legal system that is independent of the national legal orders of MS → binding
on MS → obliged to apply EU law (7)
● EU law prevails over national law → Article 189 (now 288 TFEU) (11)
○ regulation ‘shall be binding’ and ‘directly applicable in all member states
● Article 177 (now 267 TFEU)
○ Needs to be applied regardless of any domestic law
Conclusion
● EU law has direct effect and takes precedence over national law
● Costa Enel → supremacy EU law
○ Meaning that EU law has direct effect → prevailing over national law
○ No direct effect without supremacy of EU law = ensure uniformity
■ Invoke EU law directly = national rules cannot be conflicting with this = so
supremacy needed
○ Conflict = EU law prevails
, Opinion 2/13 EU Accession to the ECHR
What is the case about
● Concerns → compatibility of the proposed accession of the EU to the ECHR with EU law
○ Agreement must not affect autonomy of EU law
● Request for Opinion by Commission → based on Art. 218 (11) TFEU
Issue: ‘Is the draft agreement providing for the accession of the EU to ECHR” compatible with the
Treaties?’
Facts
● Accession of the EU to the ECHR → Legal basis in Article 6 TEU
● ECHR → only state entities are parties → ECHR is only binding on states
○ EU →
■ precluded by its very nature from being considered a state
■ EU has a new kind of legal order
● Article 6(2) TEU → accession must preserve features of EU law
○ → accession should not affect the specific characteristics of the EU and EU law
○ these characteristics include those relating to the constitutional structure of the EU
Decision/rule/judgement
● → Agreement is not compatible with Article 6(2) TEU or with Protocol No 8 EU:
1. agreement does not take into account the characteristics and the autonomy of EU law
● By accession, the ECHR → binding on institutions and MS
○ EU institutions → subject to controls of ECHR + judgements ECtHR
● 3 ways agreement failed to take account of specific characteristics EU law
1. MS → possibility of applying higher HR standards than EU Charter →
No coordination between Article 53 ECHR and Article 53 of the Charter
2. Mutual trust
- MS have to assume other MS to complying with EU law + FR
(191)
- But → accession would “require MS to check that another Member
State has observed fundamental rights (194)
- undermining principle mutual trust → liable to upset balance
EU and undermine autonomy of EU law [194]
3. Protocol 16 ECHR
- Allows ECHR states’ highest courts to seek opinions from ECtHR
→ threat autonomy of EU law → courts might prefer going to
strasbourg on compatibility of EU law with ECHR rights
, 2. Agreement liable to affect Article 344 TFEU
● draft agreement → possibility that EU or MS might submit an application
to the ECtHR concerning violations in conjunction with EU law
● Allows the ECtHR to rule on disputes involving MS or the EU regarding the
application of ECHR within the scope of EU law
● → violates Art. 344 TFEU = art. gives CJEU monopoly on inter-state dispute
settlement regarding EU law between Member States
3. co-respondent mechanism
● Agreement
○ Contracting Party can become a co-respondent by accepting invitation
ECtHR → EU may become a co-respondent
● Issue →
○ When there is a case against a MS which calls into question the
compatibility of EU law with the convention →
○ Ask permission to ECtHR to become co-respondent → means the court
calls into question EU law and assess whether EU law as involved
■ If ECtHR were to decide whether the conditions for
co-respondent status are met = involve an assessment EU law
→ interfere with division of powers EU/MS
○ This is not allowed → ECJ only court that can interpret EU law
● → risk of adversely affecting the division of powers between EU/MS (225)
4. “prior involvement” procedure in the draft agreement
- prior involvement →
- ECJ is consulted/involved before ECtHR makes a decision where EU law
is relevant = ensure EU's judicial system functions properly
- EU is fully informed → institution can assess whether ECJ has already
made a ruling on the legal question in a case before ECtHR
- No ruling = EU can initiate prior involvement procedure
- Issue
- ECtHR decides whether ECJ should be given the right to prior
involvement → involves interpretation of EU law → cannot happen
5. CFSP
● CJEU has limited jurisdiction in CFSP
● draft agreement → allows ECtHR to rule on the compatibility with the ECHR of
certain acts, actions or omissions performed within the CFSP (254)
● ECtHR, a non-EU body, would have exclusive judicial review CFSP acts
Conclusion
● draft agreement was incompatible with the Treaties
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper StudentLAW2024. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,16. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67474 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen