Samenvatting

Summary European Law exam notes

3 keer verkocht

Vak
European Law (RGBEE50110)

Instelling
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)

A smaller set of notes which summarise the lectures and relevant cases which I made and used during the exam period of European Law, essentially they combine the lectures and case notes that I have already uploaded in separate files on Stuvia as I think it is helpful to have a condensed version to ...

[Meer zien]

Voorbeeld 10 van de 62 pagina's

Bekijk voorbeeld

Geupload op 2 april 2020
Aantal pagina's 62
Geschreven in 2019/2020
Type Samenvatting

european law
exam notes
international and european law

Volgen

NGardner Lid sinds 5 jaar 203 documenten verkocht

€9,99

Ook beschikbaar in voordeelbundel v.a. €20,49

In winkelwagen

Opslaan

100% tevredenheidsgarantie
Direct beschikbaar na je betaling
Lees online óf als PDF
Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten

Ook beschikbaar in voordeelbundel (1)

European Law Bundle set

€ 23,47 € 20,49

2x verkocht

3 items

1. Samenvatting - European law concise case summaries
2. Samenvatting - European law exam notes
3. Samenvatting - European law lectures
Meer zien

European Law
Exam Notes
2019-2020

,NotesWeek 1 (A) A new legal order + direct effect
(B) Values + enforcement

 Shuman Declaration [1950]
1. Pooling resources-
New Europe-entangle economies-no war
2. Colonialism-Pooling reinforces colonialism
-Euro-African Internal market- decolonization [Europe shrank]

 Why is the EU different?
-Integration + pooling sovereignty were not new [Napoleonic + Roman empires]
-NEW: Don’t destroy individual parts but create a supranational centre

 Types of integration
1. Intergovernmental
-Nations coming together to solve problems
-Every state has final say [veto]

2. Supranational
-Sovereignty pooled in supranational institutions
-Issue binding laws-everyone is bound

 Proposals for EU integration [post WW2]
1. Count Kalergi
-Intergovernmental cooperation-couldn’t bind states
2. Jean Monnet
-Supranational cooperation- bind states
-Convinced 6 MS to limit their sovereignty + create supranational institutions

 Pooling sovereignty
 Economically: Creation of internal market
-Europeans freely do business across continent
-Tools to protect own market= illegal
 Politically: Non-discrimination
-Europeans treated equally across the continent
-Europe is for Europeans unlike USA which is for Americans

 The Plan: ECSC [Created by Monnet ]
-Coal + steel=starting point for poling resources-used to wage war
-Regulated under the High Authority [Monnet=president]
-Framework exported to other parts of 6 MSs economies

 Hope for European nuclear force
-EURATOM [1957] =separate community because sovereignty rests with USA
-Wanted to become third nuclear superpower-couldn’t compete with Russia/USA

 Founding + amending treaties
 Founding=Create new organization
 Amending=amending that organization
EEC=Founding treaty of TFEU
EC= Founding treaty of TEU [inspiration from ECSC]

 Current treaties of the EU
 Treaty on European Union [TEU]
-Constitutional rules+ CFSP
 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [TFEU]
-Makes constitutional rules work
-Contains policy fields of EU
-Protocols
 EU Charter of fundamental rights

, -Same legal values as TFEU + TEU
CJEU interprets treaty + gives meaning to articles

 Whole body of EU law [supranational law]
 Primary law
-Treaties
-Unwritten General principles [discovered by CJEU]
 Secondary Law
-All law made in accordance with procedures prescribed in primary law
 CJEU
-Rules on interpretation of EU law
-Cannot legislate

 The nature of EU law
 International or constitutional law?
o International law= rights/obligations for states
o Constitutional law=rights/obligations for citizens
- Supranational law is internationally made but functions like constitutional law
- because it directly provides individuals with rights
 Supremacy v direct effect [not in treaties]
-Explained by CJEU case law
-To have direct effect EU law needs to be supreme [interrelated]
o Direct effect [VGEL]=Like constitutional law can be invoked in national law by citizens
o Supremacy [Costa v ENEL] = Where EU has competence it has precedence, no international law
monism or dualism
-Limit to supremacy?
-Unlike with constitutional law- no popular sovereignty to tap into-where there is no delegation of
competence there is no supremacy
 Legal heritage of individuals [VGEL/Costa v ENEL]
-Rights created at the supranational level belong to all EU citizens
 A system of values [Articles 2 + 3 TEU]
-All EU law has to comply with these values
-Human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, rule of law
 Reason for EU existence: messianism [saviour]?
-The EU succeeded in its promises in Schuman Declaration -nothing to offer but its success
-Everything happens via MSs!
o No EU court but MS courts
o MS have high involvement in institutions
o EU is scapegoat: MS blame it when things go wrong
 The rule of law + expectations
-EU is based on the rule of law + decisions are implemented at the lower level
-The more rights that have entered the more expectations have grown
-Still an economic union + enforcement for Article 2 Values in limited
-Hungary/Poland violating rule of law but have prosperous economies

 Direct effect
-Individuals go before national courts to have EU rights protected
-Article 267 TFEU {prelim rulings} is justification for DE
 Direct effect test [VGEL]
1. Provision should be clear
2. Provision should be precise [no double meaning]
3. Provision should be unconditional [not dependent on intervention by national authorities]

 Direct effect v direct applicability
 Direct applicability
-No transposition or further implementation of EU law is necessary
-Directives are never directly applicable [forced dualism]
 Direct effect
-Individuals rely on provisions of EU law before national courts
-Clear, precise and unconditional
-Directives, although not directly applicable can have direct effect sometimes

, Direct effect + secondary EU law
-Now principle has spread to secondary EU law
1. Regulations: LeonesioVertical DE
MunozHorizontal DE
2. Decisions: 9/70 GradNot in reader
3. Directives:
-Not directly applicableextensive case law
-When directives were introduced there was an assumption that EU MSs would always comply with obligations
-MSs always want to escape obligations
-CJEU invents ways to force them to comply
-Directives are aimed at MS but can have DE

 Direct effect of directives
-Incorrect transposition or lacking transposition after deadline has passed
 DEFAULT: No direct effect they are aimed at states BUT
1. Vertical DE [Van Duyn]
-Can only go against states or other public sector organ
-We do not allow states to fail at fulfilling EU law obligations
2. Horizontal DE [Prohibited] [Marshall]
-Private party v private party=allowed
-Often resort to indirect effect to award rights in these cases
3. Reverse vertical DE [prohibited] [Kolpinghuis]
-Public authority against private party
-Prohibited in EU law
4. Indirect DE
-Private party v private party
-Court found a way around the prohibition of horizontal DE
-Read EU law into national law
-Limitations
1. No contra legim
-Can’t interpret against national law where it is clear and unambiguous
2. Legal certainty
-Cannot read into law that doesn’t exist
5. Triangular situations
-Rarely a neat vertical situation
-Disputes between a private person + public authority have indirect effect on another private person

 Rights from directives in national courts [all directive situations]
Step 1: Apply sufficiently clear and unconditional test
Step 2: Limitations
1. Normative
-No horizontal DE [Marshall]
-No inverse vertical DE [Kolpinghuis]
2. Temporal limitations
-Transposition deadline has passed and state
I. Not implemented directive
II. Implemented directive improperly

 Loyalty [Article 4(3)]: A necessary precondition
-Aimed at EU institutions + MS institutions
-A duty to help and not to hinder
-MS must carry out obligations under EU law, but national law must also comply with these obligations

 Loyalty + the scope of the acquis
-Presumption of compliance by MS, only things raised before CJEU will be assessed
1. MS failing to comply with the law [acquis]
2. MS failing to comply with Article 2 values
-Allot of these areas are regulated by national competences
-The appointment of judges [nat. competence] directly affects compliance with EU value [rule of law Art 2]

,  Enforcement of the acquis v enforcement of values
-Article 2 values are enforced by Article 7=political procedure
 Article 7(1)sanction those who threaten the values
 Article 7(2) or have violated them
 Article 7(3) Sanctions [suspend council voting]
 Article 7(4)Revocation of sanctions

 Article 7: Enforcement of values: political action, no legal basis
-Not about acquis this is enforced using 258/59 + 260 TFEU
-Can give EU right to intervene in areas of MS competence where they threaten EU values
-This is political condemnation + so no need for a legal basis, not a legal action

 Enforcement of the acquis : legal action, legal basis

 Private enforcement: National courts: For individuals in individual cases
-CJEU will formulate principles/make interpretations but national court must apply it to the individual case
Article 19 TEU:
CJEU: In interpretation + application of treaties the law is observed
-267TFEU preliminary ruling for interpretation
National Court: provide remedies sufficient [..] effective legal protection in areas covered by EU law
 Public enforcement: Supranational institutions: EU institutions for all
-EU institutions enforce EU law for the sake of all EU citizens/companies
Articles 258/9/260 +17TEU
o Article 258 TEFU: Infringement procedure
-Discretion of the commission
-Goal is to foster a climate of EU law compliance
1. Administrative stage
o Informal stageMS opportunity too reach solution with commission
o Formal stageMS formally notified of the specific infringement in the letter of
formal notice
o Formal stageCommission issues a reasoned opinion which sets a time limit in
which MS must comply with EU law
2. Judicial stage
-Case referred to CJEU
Commission v Italy
-Doesn’t matter if breach has stopped can still be used to get compensation for individuals
Irish Waste
-Can be a cumulation of breaches
o Article 17 TEU: The commission has responsibility for correct application of treaties
o Article 269 TFEU: Infringement procedure
-Rarely used procedure-politics means MS would always rather it be a 258TFEU procedure
-Shielded by commission
-MSs are co-responsible for atmosphere of compliance
Always starts at 258TFEU
1. Commission agrees with MSbecomes a 258TFEU action
2. Commission doesn’t agree with MS+ doesn’t issue a reasoned opinionbecomes 259TFEU
action
Spain v UK
-Commission dismisses Spains allegation that UK cannot hold elections in Gibraltar
-Gibraltar is an autonomous colony of the UK
-Spain brings case to CJEU + CJEU dismisses
o Article 260TFEU: Post CJEU judgement
-Sanctions for non-compliance under infringement procedures
 Lump sum: Breach of obligations has persisted for a long time since judgement
 Penalty payment: put a stop to a breach of obligations ASAP
Summary

Acquis [legal action]
o Article 4(3): A duty to help + not to hinder
 Help [In MS itself]
-Private enforcement: Direct applicability+ direct effect + supremacy + Article 19

, -Enact measures that will ensure protection [Spanish Strawberries]
 Not to hinder [By EU institutions]
-Enforcement of the acquis=public enforcement
-Articles 258/259/260/17=Commission as guardian of the treaties

Values [political action]
o Article 4(3): A duty to help + not to hinder
 Help [In MS itself]
-MS must have regard for Article 2 values when exercising national competences
 Not to hinder [By EU institutions]
-Enforcement of Article 2 values via Article 7

Case law

Private enforcement: acquis=full effectiveness of community law in national courts
o Article 4(3): Duty to help: Simmenthal + Factortame: National court has task of ensuring
effectiveness of EU by awarding individuals their rights

 VGELDirect effect of treaty provision
 Costa v ENELSupremacy
 SimmenthalNational substantive laws: The consequences of direct effect and supremacy-national court set aside
provision which conflicts weather prior or subsequent without waiting for repeal or declaration of unconstitutionality
 FactortameNational procedural laws: National procedural laws that would prevent the full effectiveness of community
law must be set aside [Interim relief] even though MS have autonomy here despite parliamentary sovereignty
 Accession to the ECHREU must remain sole interpreter of EU law despite the fact national courts apply it
 Defrenne v Sabena Horizontal DE of clear and unconditional treaty provisions
 LeonesioVertical DE of Regulations because of direct applicability
 MunozHorizontal DE of Regulations
 Van DuynVertical DE of directives on a case by case basis
 MarshallFor vertical DE you need to check that the transposition deadline has passed + state has failed to
implement/implement correctly
 MarshallNo horizontal DE of directives

Public enforcement: acquis= Full effectiveness of EU law in MSs enforced by commission in the CJEU
o Article 4(3): Duty not to hinder: Refrain from measures which could jeopardise attainment of the
objectives of EU law: commission oversees this

 Commission v Italy: Article 258TFEU-Faliure to implement
-Applies to secondary legislation
-Both the manner in which the MS gives effect to provisions + non-implementation of provisions can affect the equality
of all members of the EU
 France v UK: Article 259 TFEU- Adopting a positive act that is contrary to EU law
-An infringement procedure applies to a breach of a council resolution, it can be bought for any breach of the whole
acquis
 Star Fruit: Article 265TFEU
-After issuing a reasoned opinion, the commission has discretion on weather to bring to CJEU or not
 Commission v France I: Article 258TFEU-MS failing to take action
-MS have discretion in areas of their competence but CJEU can review
 Irish Waste: Article 258TFEU
-In areas of MS competence where they have discretion a period of time must elapse before we can say they have failed
to take adequate measures
 Commission v France II: Article 260TFEU
-The purpose of Article 260TFEU is to induce a MS to comply with the judgement and therefore to have community law
applied
 Commission v Hungary: Article 258TFEU
-MS adopting legislation which is contrary to secondary EU law
 Spain v UK: Article 259TFEU
-Example of when an Article 259TFEU procedure is bough for political reasons there was no error in law on behalf of
the UK

,NotesWeek 2- Decision-making in the EU
 Competence [to legislate]: Article 5(1) TEU conferral
-Only where MS has transferred the competence
-Case Law: VGEL
‘States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit in limited field’

Exclusive
 Article 2(1) TFEUGeneral description
 Article 3 TFEUActual competences
-In these areas only the union can legislate
-Born with the union
-MSs can only act if union confers power on them for implementation
Shared
 Article 2(2) TFEUGeneral description
 Article 4 TFEUActual competence
-In these areas both the EU + MS have competence to legislate
-Competence of national government before union harmonized to avoid conflict
-As soon as EU exercises this competence the MS can only legislate to implement
-Either/or but not both can legislate
Complementary
 Article 2(5) TFEUGeneral description
 Article 6 TFEUActual competence
-MS appreciate the EUs financial aid in these areas
-These are still legally binding acts but the EU cannot harmonise national law
CFSP
 Article 24 TEU
-The EU has no legislative power and defines and implements only
-This is an intergovernmental area
-MS must not abuse competence under Article 40 TEU
No EU competence
 These are not mentioned in the treaties
-Drug use, taxation, gambling

 Harmonization [shared competences]
-Isn’t necessary with exclusive + not allowed with complementary
-National law is repealed by an EU standard
 Biggest category=internal market
-MS can adopt any legislation it wants until the EU decides to legislate
-MS looses competence when EU makes this decision + EU law replaces content of national law and
the national right to legislate in that area

 Competence v legal basis
 Competence= Area that EU MS can legislate in broadly [MS limited sovereignty]
 Policy area= Found in TFEU
 Legal basis=Steps EU should take if it chooses to legislate
o Competences/legal bases are a balancing act between EU + MSs
 Competences: Interests of EU v interests of MS
 Legal bases:
1. Externally-Role of EU v Role of MS [who will legislate]
2. Internally-Role of institutions
o Case law on balancing
-The principle of institutional balance: Each EU institution must exercise its powers with die regard for the
powers of other institutions
1. Balancing of competences between EU and MS
Case law: Tobacco Advertising I
-MS fear that EU can use internal market to regulate everything
Case law: Antarctic Treaty
-Who should represent EU?
 Commission believes this is fisheries policy
 Council believes this is environmental policy

, 2. Selection of legal bases + institutions
Case law: Chernobyl
-Parliament as democratic institution being shut out
Subsidiarity + proportionality
-Apply when competence is clear
o Commission comes up with a proposal and they need to justify legislation on the basis of these two principles

 Subsidiarity
-Article 5(3) TEUUse of competence, should the union act?
-Applied in shared + complementary competences
-Problems should be remedied as close to the citizen as possible; only transboundary issues will be dealt with by
the EU

 Political safeguard: Protocol no. 2 [pg 132]
-Union hasn’t acted yet
o Article 5(3) TEUNational Parliaments assess compliance
o Article 12 TEUNational parliaments + subsidiarity
o Article 4/5 of pro.2Commission justifies compliance with subsidiarity; must not use vague terms like ‘internal
market’ to regulate everything
Yellow card procedure: Article 7
-Representative body in each MS has two yellow cards per proposal
-If the majority of national parliaments do not agree that proposal is in line with subsidiarity, commission either
-Redrafts
-Restates reasons for proposal
-No veto by MS this would distort the power of the EU

 Judicial safeguard: Protocol no.2
-Union has acted and there has been an infringement of subsidiarity
Procedure: Article 8
-CJEU has jurisdiction under Article 263TFEU

 The principle of proportionality
-Article 5(4) TEUIntensity of the legislation, through which means?
-The form and content should not go beyond what is proportional
 Form= Article 288TFEU
 Content=
1. Suitable to achieve goal
2. Necessary- is there another way with less negative implications?
3. Not excessively burdensome- positive outcome must be more important than negative
consequences

 Political safeguard: Protocol no.2
o Article 4/5: Commission justifies compliance with proportionality, least invasive form to achieve goal should
be chosen

 Judicial safeguard
o CJEU performs a marginal review: must be manifestly disproportionate not to qualify

 How to spot a legal basis
1. Policy
2. Party
3. Procedure
-Some Articles have more than one legislative procedure
-Special legislative procedures will always outline the steps
-Often reiteration of general principles of policy area before the legal basis [keep reading]

 Role of institutions in legislating
-In the ordinary legislative procedure, the commission proposes and the parliament/council co-legislate
 ParliamentArticle 14 TEU
 Council of MinistersArticle 16 TEU

,  CommissionArticle 17 TEU

 The ordinary legislative procedure: Article 16 [4] TEU

Parliament: Bigger MSs have more seats in parliament

Council of Ministers
1. QMV in the council
o Bigger MS have more weight in council
-Weighed voting that
-Represents 55% of MS
-But must also represent 65% of the EU population
-Important because each MS has one representative with one vote but totally different
population sizes
2. Blocking minority
-4 council members representing 35% of the EU population

 The ordinary legislative procedure explained
-Article 294TFEU + 289(1) TFEU
 First reading
-proposal from Commission to EP/Council
 Option 1: parliament approves proposalcouncil approves parliament position without amendment
 Option 2: parliament adopts amendment to proposalcouncil approves parliament position
× Option 3: Parliament adopts amendment to proposal council adopts amendment to parliament
position--------
 Second reading
 Option 1: parliament approves councils position without amendment
 Option 2: Parliament adopts amendments to Councils positioncouncil approves
× Option 3: Not adopted: Parliament rejects councils position
× Option 4: Parliament adopts amendments to councils positioncouncil doesn’t approve these
amendments -----
 Third reading: conciliation committee convened to reach agreement
× No Agreement reached
× Agreement reached + Joint text not approved
 Agreement reached + joint text approved

 Is everything legislative? No!
 Article 288TFEU: Regulations, Directives, Decisions, Recommendations + Opinions
-Latter two are not legislative
 Article 289(3) TFEU: Legislative acts go through the legislative procedure
 Article 290 TFEU: Delegated acts
-A legislative act may delegate power to the commission to adopt non-legislative acts to supplement
elements of legislative acts
 Article 291TFEU: Implementing acts
-MS or commission may be awarded power in legislative act to adopt implementing act

Case law: All Article 263TFEU procedures

 UK v Council: Proper approach to correct choice of legal basis-objective factors amenable to judicial review
 Chernobyl: parliament believes that it has been shut out [democratic institution]- need to look at aim and content of
regulation- can have incidental affects on another policy area
 Tobacco Advertising, I: EU cannot use internal market competence to regulate everything
 Antarctica Treaties: Fight between EU and MS extends to instruments like reflection papers not just legislation and aim
and content test must be used
-Dual legal basis where they are inseparably linked

Part II
 Titanium Dioxide Waste: Can only resort to dual legal basis where the procedure is the same for both
 Working time Directive: When a legal basis is chosen but part of the content does not fit the aim this part can be annulled
separately as long as it is severable

,  Criminal penalties/environment: where the harmonization of criminal law is minimal the community may legislate under
environmental legal basis to ensure effectiveness of EU law
-Where part of the directive is not severable then whole thing mist be annulled
 Tobacco Advertising II: Criteria for the use of 114TFEU as a general legal basis for harmonizing the internal market
1. Are there disparities between national rules?
2. What is the effect of such disparities: is it creating obstacles now or in the future?
3. Look at specific articles that want to be annulled: are they aimed at preventing or eliminating these obstacles?
 Refugee Status: Establishment of secondary legal basis are not allowed unless the treaty says an institution can amend the
decision-making procedure
 Ireland v EP + Council: Looks really heavily at the substance of the secondary legislation in order to determine what it
predominantly concerns

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

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.