EU Law Core Cases Flashcards
(28 cards)
What were the following cases about/entailed: Commission v Greece, Commission v Spain, Commission v France
Greece = 20k penalty per day. Didn’t comply with court judgement.
Spain = 620k for each 1% waters not complying.
France = 20mil penalty as didn’t comply with court decision. serious breach.
Francovich v Italy
STATE LIABILITY. Italy 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 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.
Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany
French brewery sued the German government for damages for not allowing it to export beer to Germany in late 1981 for failing to comply with a national law. Held breach.
What did Brasserie de Peucher establish 3 conditions for and what were they?
- the rule of law infringed must have intended to confer rights on individuals
- the breach must be ‘sufficiently serious’
- there must be a direct causal link between the breach and the damage
What was Commission v Romania about and what did it establish?
€3,000,000 fine for failing to transpose Directive by due date regarding money laundering and terrorist financing. Showed how the commission can enforce transposition of directives into national law.
What happened in Plaumann and Co v Commission
Plaumann sought annulment of Commission decision denying the request from Germany to reduce tariffs on clementines. Commission held inadmissible because decision was addressed to Germany and ‘another person; cannot be a member state. Article 263 TFEU) ‘any natural or legal person may …institute proceedings against a decision …which, although in the form of…a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former’.
What is the Plaumann formula?
Individuals other than the one addressed by decision can only claim to be individually concerned for JR if it affects them differently to everyone else/unique circumstances.
Giuffrida v Council
Applied for job required to someone who was already within EU. Was rejected, he challenged this. The decision to appoint Emilio Martino to the post of was annulled because the internal competition was found to be aimed solely at appointing a specific candidate, contrary to the objectives of fair recruitment procedures and the interests of the service. Conclusion of misuse of powers in making the appointment.
Costa v ENEL
By transferring from their domestic system to the EU one, MS were effectively submitting to a “permanent limitation of their sovereign rights”. (Supremacy of EU law)
Van Gend en Loos
Enforced customs taxes which breached EU Law. Held that the EU created a new legal order and by joining, you’re submitting to that order. Limits sovereignty and must submit to it.
Simmenthal case
Confirmed that EU law would prevail in national courts against all incompatible MS law, regardless of timing
Fedesa
About livestock hormones and demonstrated proportionality principle.
-Action must be suitable to achieve objective.
-Action must be least invasive intervention.
-(Must not be disproportionate to aims pursued).
Von Colson principle
national courts have obligation to interpret domestic legislation to comply with EU law when it is not directly effective.
Kolpinghuis Nijmegen
Cafe accused of serving mineral water that was not bottled at the source, which was a violation of a Dutch law. This law was based on a directive. Held that a directive cannot be used as a basis for criminal charges in a national court unless it has been implemented into national law.
R. v Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food
Individuals can seek remedy from Member State for losses suffered. Does not HAVE to be the individuals own member state.
Factortame
UK required ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the UK. State liability.
Commission v Belgium (Wallonian Waste)
Wallonia banned disposing of foreign waste. Held absolute ban is unlawful because free movement of goods protected by art 30. Waste is a good because recyclable waste has commercial value and is protected by treaty, so other waste is too as it can be hard to tell the difference. Therefore comes under and is protected by art 30.
Commission v Italy (Art Treasures)
Italy had imposed high duties on artistic pieces it considered part of its heritage, arguing that Union rules should not apply. They claimed a good with artistic or historical value was a different type of good so could keep their law. However, the court held that these were goods and Union rules did apply. Court defined the concept of goods as products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions.
Dassonville
Certificates of origin for whisky, difficult to obtain where not direct importer -
unacceptable. Whisky - certificates of origin required – harder to obtain if not direct import from source country. “All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.”
Cassis di Dijon
Ban on selling liqueur as too low in alcohol – unacceptable
Keck
Ban on selling goods at a loss – acceptable. French law prohibited the resale of goods that had not been altered or repackaged at a price lower than the price at which they had been bought, in order to prevent so-called ‘predatory pricing’ (the process of making a short-term loss in order to force competition out of the market). The measure was challenged as being contrary to Art 34. HELD – selling arrangements do not constitute an MEQR as long as the provision applies to all affected traders in same territory and must affect traders in the same manner.
R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion in World Farming
applicant wanted a ban on export of calves to Spain due to poor conditions. Held restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. Argued the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals. Held insufficient.
Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg
trainee teacher in Germany denied employment because wasn’t German national. Argued she was a worker and protected by art45. Held she WAS a worker so is protected.
essential feature of an employment relationship is that for a certain period of time a person performs services of some economic value for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration.
Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
woman moved with husband for his job and she begins to work part-time. Rejected her application for permanent residence because she didn’t move for sole purpose of employment. Held that it doesn’t matter if she’s part-time and earns less than minimum wage or works less hours, she is still a worker and is entitled to move.
