Cases

Question 0

Interenvironnement Wallonie

Answer 0

Sincere Cooperation - cannot introduce national legislation going against a directive during the implementation period.

Question 1

Pringle 2012

Answer 1

Preliminary ruling 1) re validity of decision allowing European Stability Mechanism - because used SLP. 2) re compatibility of ESM Treaty with EU treaties.

1) SLP ruled to be valid.
2) ESM is not monetary policy (exclusive EU competence) but economic policy.

Important because: ECJ accepted to review legality of EuropeanC decision amending Treaties.
ECJ has jurisdiction to rule on international treaties beyond EU law.

Question 2

Defrenne 1976

Answer 2

HDE OF PRIMARY LAW
GPEUL introduced from Treaty aim of non-discrimination on grounds of sex.

HDE of Provisions so long as they conform to VGEL Criteria and are directed at individuals^^
(Belgian airlines lady.)

Question 3

EART 1971

Answer 3

Implied powers - EU has implied powers to sign international agreements in areas where it has internal competence.
Has wide reading (existence of objective implies existence of power for EU) or narrow (only exceptional cases, must be necessary)

Question 4

Case C-130/10 Parliament vs Council

Answer 4

Choice of legal basis in field of fight against terrorism - freezing of funds and economic resources etc.
Choice between Art75 (requires parliament) and Art215 TFEU (former 2nd pillar, doesn’t involve EP) –> EP questioned validity as hadn’t been consulted (215 used). ECJ ruled that this was OK.

Question 5

Van Gend en Loos 1964

Answer 5

VDE PRIMARY LAW
Treaty provisions can have vertical direct effect when they convey rights on individuals and are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional.

NEW LEGAL ORDER

Question 6

Munoz 2002

Answer 6

Regulations have DE owing to their nature.

Question 7

Van Duyne 1974

Answer 7

VDE OF DIRECTIVES

So long as fulfil VGEL criteria and the implementation period has expired.
(Scientologist)
MS cannot benefit from own non-implementation (even though here they did…)

Question 8

Marshall 1986

Answer 8

Directives do not have Horizontal Direct Effect.

Because apply to MS not individuals, because would blur distinction between regulations and directives, and legal certainty argument - directives can only create rights not obligations for individuals…
But broad definition of the State (ie …) means that here Vertical DE was used. (re 1976 Equal Treatment Directive)
Criticised as harming uniform implementation as differentiates between public and private sector workers.

Question 9

Foster vs British Gas 1990

Answer 9

Further enlarged definition of state
Was privatised but at time of events was nationalised, therefore was state.
When a body provides a public service under control of the State, and for that purpose has special powers.
So might include universities, nationalised industries, regional/local authorities,

Question 10

Commission vs Italy 1972

Answer 10

Vertical direct effect of Regulations (so long as VGEL criteria fulfilled)

Question 11

Franz Grad

Answer 11

Decisions have VDE - individual can invoke before national court a decision ADDRESSED to a MS.
(Not really got HDE of decisions- unless is addressed to private party.)
Combined effect of a Provision, directive and decision can create DE. Not sure.

Question 12

Mangold

Answer 12

Something to do with GPEULs.
Even with non-expiry of implementation period of directives, and with conflicting national law, between two private parties. … HDE can be invoked where GPEULs are concerned. When it is secondary legislation (directive) implementing a GPEUL.

Question 13

Von Colson 1984

Answer 13

VERTICAL (AND HORIZONTAL) INDIRECT EFFECT of DIRECTIVES
Principle of Harmonious Interpretation - national law should be interpreted in light of EU law (inc directives). Because Article 43 TFEU imposes a duty of loyal co- operation on all authorities of the state.
Applies even once implementation period is passed and both Horizontally and Vertically.
Even if directive in question did not fulfil VGEL criteria.
EXCEPTIONS: cannot interpret national law contra legem and cannot make a penalty worse than it would be under national law.

Question 14

Marleasing 1990

Answer 14

Harmonious interpretation doctrine used in a horizontal situation.
Like Von Colson.
Same exceptions - not contra legem and cannot aggravate personal liability.
Purpose of Directive is enough. So doesn’t have to fulfil VGEL criteria.

Question 15

COSTA vs ENEL 1964

Answer 15

Supremacy of EU law over national law
New autonomous legal order.
MS given up sovereignty, to ensure uniform interpretation EU law must be supreme.

Question 16

Simmenthal 1978

Answer 16

Supremacy of EU law over national law regardless of when the national law was introduced.

Question 17

Francovich 1991

Answer 17

State Liability for breach of EU law ie non-implementation of directive

For when DE/IE is not possible.

Three conditions: Directive gives rights to the individual; content of the rights must be stated in the Directive; causal link between the breach and the damages
• Compensation should be awarded under national law - must be sufficient and effective, and must not be less than for a breach of national law (i.e. equivalent to national comp)

Question 18

Brasserie du Pecheur / Factortame 1996

Answer 18

State liability re Breach of Primary Law

Two similar cases.
Principle of full effectiveness still applies
• Treaty does not mention state liability, but art. 340 TFEU on EU liability existed and was used as inspiration
• New, broader definition - state liability (and so right to reparation) exists if: rule infringed gives rights to the individual; breach is “sufficiently serious” (MS has surpassed the limits of its discretion or ignored previous case law); causal link between the breach and the damages
• Applies to both primary and secondary law

Question 19

CILFIT 1982

Answer 19

ACTE CLAIR DOCTRINE.

ECJ limited own competence - by describing cases when national court is not obliged to refer preliminary ref to ECJ - when is beyond doubt what the answer would be, from previous case law. Interpretation must involve language comparison.
In practice narrowly used to avoid rogue national courts.

Question 20

Plaumann 1963

Answer 20

Test for individual concern - to prove standing for individuals to be able to bring stuff before the ECJ. 
 • Individuals have standing if an act is addressed to them, or if they are directly and individually concerned. DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN. 
• “Individual concern” is tested by establishing that the individual is in a class that is distinguishable from any other applicant

Question 21

Foto Frost 1987

Answer 21

INDIRECT ACTION/ ACTE CLAIR DOCTRINE
Obligation of all national judges to ask for a preliminary ruling if it relates to the validity of an EU act. ONLY the ECJ can declare an act void.
• Guarantees the principle of uniform application of EU law

Question 22

Internationale Handesgelsellshaft 1970

Answer 22

EU law overrides Constitutional law even where Fundamental Rights are concerned. To ensure uniform application.
Germany disagrees and ignores EU law which ignores DE FRs - means ECJ looks to broaden its FRs.

Question 23

Opinion 2/94

Answer 23

EU cannot sign the ECHR - hasn’t got the competence to - no Treaty provisions re human rights etc.
And to do so would affect autonomy of EU legal order to make EU subject to ECourtHR in Strasbourg.
Re Flexibility Clause: case where ECJ has been more strict and will not allow use of this clause to justify signing ECHR.

Question 24

Stauder

Answer 24

Fundamental Rights are GPEULs because they are part of domestic traditions. So FRs take priority over EU acts that discriminate.

Question 25

Carpenter 2002

Answer 25

Fundamental Rights Still subject to an economic condition. Deporting Carpenter would infringe the freedom of movement of her husband as she looks after the children.

Question 26

Kadi 2008

Answer 26

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: International agreements are binding on secondary but not primary EU law, and can be scrutinised from a fundamental rights perspective. ECJ annulled UNSC resolution. Basically Kadi wanted to annul implementing acts which infringed on his freedoms but ECJ ruled that it couldn't overrule UN Security Council Resolution that ordered it. Then it overruled that and said that Primary Law cannot be infringed by other law.

Question 27

Viking Lines

Answer 27

Non-absolute fundamental rights can be derogated from if there is a legitimate objective and if the derogation is proportionate Here was between freedom of establishment and right to collective action, both of which are fundamental. Settled out of court. HDE of Free movement of services does not exist, because ECJ considered trade union here to be emanation of state so a vertical situation.

Question 28

Wells vs Secretary of State for Transport

Answer 28

Oblique direct effect / Triangular situation VDE can be imposed even if imposing a directive on a MS will have adverse consequences for individuals. Looks like horizontal direct effect of directives - but isn't. Is me taking MS to court which has actual affect on third party.

Question 29

Seda Kucukdeveci

Answer 29

Confirms from Mangold case that when a secondary legislation is implementing a GPEUL, it has DE and can be invoked even before expiry of implementation period. Here it was re discrimination, which is now also in ECHR ie primary law. ECJ further held that national courts have a duty to disapply any provision of national legislation contrary to the principle of equal treatment.

Question 30

Pfeiffer

Answer 30

DIRECTIVES: Harmonious interpretation applies not only to laws but to whole national legal system. Court has to do whatever lies within its jurisdiction to ensure that a directive is effective.

Question 31

Kolpinghuis Nijmegen

Answer 31

Harmonious interpretation cannot aggravate personal liability.

Question 32

Factortame

Answer 32

Re Supremacy of EU Law. UK national legislation said no interim relief against the Crown. ECJ said that interim relief is a normal part of domestic legal systems and a piece of national legislation cannot override EU belief in this principle. Basically.

Question 33

Poulsen and Diva Navigation

Answer 33

Binding nature of customary international law rules.

Question 34

Haegeman

Answer 34

International agreements are immediately part of EU law. ie MONISM.

Question 35

MOX Plant Case

Answer 35

Autonomy of EU legal order - MS cannot take disputes between themselves to other courts. ECJ sanctioned Ireland on the grounds of its exclusive jurisdiction on fishing matters. (exclusive competence).

Question 37

Reyners vs Belgium

Answer 37

Direct effect of Primary Law: Treaty can have direct effect even without implementing measures adopted by EC or MS. Here was re freedom of establishment. Similar to Defrenne. Real effect to Treaty provisions despite absence of secondary law.

Question 38

American Air Transport Association 2011

Answer 38

EU Law in International Legal Order: re Emissions Trading and imposing them on non-EU airlines landing at EU airports. ECJ upheld validity of the directive despite claims that it goes against Kyoto, Clear Skies Agreement etc.

Question 39

International Fruit Company 1973 | Portugal vs Council 1999

Answer 39

EU legal order in international law: re DE for GATT Provisions - doesn't exist. Other cases v reluctantly granted it. When it EU leg specifically mentions a GATT provision... Portugal Case : No DE of WTO agreements except where the EU intended to implement a particular provision.

Question 40

Opinion 1/91

Answer 40

ECJ guards its own jurisdication: establishment of an EEA Court, consisting of judges from ECH and EFTA states, was incompatible with autonomy of EU legal order. Plus would introduce conflicting interpretation, inconsistency, v bad.

Question 41

Vaassen Göbbels, 1965 | Dorsch Consult, 1997

Answer 41

PRELIMINARY RULINGS: Who can refer to ECJ for preliminary ruling? Treaty Art 267 says 'courts' or 'tribunals' but is not v clear. In these cases said it would decide what constituted one, not national legislation. Would consider: -whether the body is established by law; whether it is permanent; whether its jurisdiction is compulsory; whether its procedure is inter partes (meaning all interested parties have been served with adequate notices and are given a reasonable opportunity to attend and to be heard); whether it applies the rule of law; whether the body is independent.

Question 42

Etang de Berre

Answer 42

re MS Breach of EU law: MS violated an international agreement which binds the EU. Commission brought case against France (and won) because France had failed to fulfil obligations under an environmental convention.

Question 43

Foglia Novello

Answer 43

PRELIMINARY REFERENCES: ECJ will decide its jurisdiction, and will not rule on hypothetical/fabricated cases.

Question 44

Textilewerke Deggendorff TWD

Answer 44

Preliminary Rulings, If the natural or legal person may act in annulment before the Community judge, but does not do so in due time (2 months), the definitive Community act binds the national court by virtue of the principle of legal certainty. Whatever that means.

Question 45

"Les Verts"

Answer 45

European Community is ‘a community based on the rule of law’ and, in particular, the Treaty had to be recognised as its ‘basic constitutional charter.’ Complete within itself. Any institution adopting acts with legal effects can be subject to judicial review.

Question 46

Codorniu

Answer 46

Re standing to challenge before ECJ. Applicant challenged regulation - could prove that it was uniquely affected by the regulation. So it was individually affected and could stand before ECJ ? Later this liberal approach was abandoned and returned to Plaumann test. Confirmed in UPA and Jego Quere.

Question 47

UPA vs Council 2002 | Jego Quere 2004

Answer 47

INDIVIDUAL CONCERN: an applicant is individually concerned where the measure has, or is liable to have, a substantial adverse effect on his interest. Jego Quere - similar, it is not appropriate for an action for annulment before the Community Court to be available to an individual who contests the validity of a measure of general application, such as a regulation, which does not distinguish him individually in the same way as an addressee, even if it could be shown that those rules do not allow the individual to bring proceedings to contest the validity of the Community measure at issue. ??

Question 48

Inuit 2013

Answer 48

People seeking annulment of a regulation directly, not through preliminary ruling procedure. About the definition of 'regulatory acts' which do not exist in LB (copy/pasted from Constitutional Treaty). I think basically makes it hard for individuals to directly challenge EU acts.

Question 49

Johnston 1986

Answer 49

PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL PROTECTION Johnston vs Prison she was working for, suffered sex discrimination. GPEUL is anti-discrimination. Interpreting the Directive in the light of this general principle, the Court ruled for the incompatibility of the British certificate approving action of the prison under Sex Discrimination Act. So ECJ overruled it, effectively.

Question 50

ERT Case

Answer 50

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - HR Based challenge to MS actions: | when derogating from EU law MS must consider FRs.

Question 51

ECourtHR Matthew vs UK 1999

Answer 51

-The ECrtHR held that the ECHR generally allowed the MS to transfer sovereignty to the EU; but where they do so, they are responsible to ensure that CV° rights are secured. This means that where EU law violates the CV°, an individual can hold a MS to account.

Question 52

ECourtHR Bosphorus vs Ireland 2005

Answer 52

ECHR in EU - case of Yugoslavian planes in Ireland being impounded because of an EU regulation. ECourtHR considered that no breach of HRs had been made because EU protection of HRs was equivalent to the ECHR. Only when the protection of HRs is manifestly deficient can the ECourtHR judge on compatibility of ms action under EU law with ECHR rights.

Question 53

Gebhard

Answer 53

FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT: Italy denied the man to practice as a lawyer using the term 'avvocato' - gives criteria for courts to determine if a measure like this is against Freedom of EStablishment. Can be justified only if 1. applied in a non‐discriminatory manner 2. justified by imperative requirement in the general interest 3. suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue 4. do not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it Think ECJ annulled Italian decision.

Question 54

Micheletti vs Delegacion ...

Answer 54

FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS “Nationality and EU citizenship are inseparable and superimposed”. MS have exclusive competence to decide nationality. (Also re Malta selling citizenship!)

Question 55

Calfa

Answer 55

Limits to EU CITIZENSHIP: Re expulsion for life from a MS: has to be proportional. expulsion for life for drug offences is not proportional, cannot do it because is obstacle to free movement, freedom of establishment etc.

Question 59

Vodafone 2010

Answer 59

Re Subsidiarity and Proportionality: ExPost control - re infringement of these principles. context = preliminary ruling on validity of EC regulation ... Case of ex-post control of subsidiarity principle. a common approach at Community level was necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market, thus allowing operators to act within a single coherent regulatory framework. But a 'light judicial approach'.

Question 60

Rutili

Answer 60

ECHR is a special source of inspiration for GPEULs.

Question 61

Estov vs Bulgaria

Answer 61

Implementation of EU Charter does not apply to internal situations. Like Ruiz Zembrano

Question 62

AKZO

Answer 62

ECJ recognises right to lawyer-client confidentiality which is beyond the rights covered in ECHR

Question 63

Baumbast

Answer 63

ECJ detached link between economic activity and migration. Like in Article 21 TFEU

Question 64

Rottman

Answer 64

Usually only MS can determine nationality, but here it limited that competence on grounds of proportionality.