Notes Flashcards

Question

Article 263 - Standing (Locus Standi)

Answer 1

Privileged applicants Semi-privileged applicants Non-privileged applicants

Answer 2

Private claimants bringing cases before domestic courts claiming a violation of EU law Advantages: cost-free and (good) detection by those affected Disadvantages: haphazard; public interest does not feature

Answer 3

By the EU Commission or another MS Advantage: public interest considerations feature greatly Disadvantage: limited capacity to detect and to pursue; political considerations come into play

Answer 4

Duty of ECJ under Article 267 is to supply all courts in the EU with the information on the interpretation of EU law

Answer 5

• MS cannot declare EU acts invalid • Only CJEU can

Answer 6

• German clementine importer • Challenged decision addressed to Germany regarding refusal of lowering duty on imports of clementines • “If an act affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them”

Answer 7

• Green Party challenged political funding from the Parliament • Argued unfair to newer parties

Answer 8

• Greek producer of cotton yarn • Commission issued decision to French Republic so that they could add quotas of cotton import from Greece to France

Answer 9

• EU regulation relating to description and presentation of wine • Cordoniú - Spanish producer who used ‘Cremant’ name since 1924

Answer 10

Re-affirmed Plaumann

Answer 11

• Dutch charge of import tariffs based on Dutch law • Article 12 Treaty of Rome said MS shall refrain from introducing new customs • EU law is capable of applying in domestic law even in the absence of any transposition • Individuals to rely on EU law directly before national courts • national courts must give effect to EU Law (and coupled with the principle of primacy, dis apply and contravening national law)

Answer 12

Refinement of direct effect conditions • Ms Defrenne was a flight attendant working for Sabena (private company) • Belgian law: female flight attendants must retire at 40 • whereas male flights attendants have to work longer • Ms Defrenne complained that this results in unequal pay for women • Because she must retire at 40 and live off a pension that is lower than what she would have earned if she had continued working • Article 157(1) TFEU says “each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied” • Court: if the Court can establish all the facts in relation to whether a woman is receiving lower pay than a male worker performing the same tasks. In such a situation, Article 157(1) is directly effective • HENCE: the test for direct effect is: • Is the provision ‘sufficiently precise and conditional’?

Answer 13

• Ms van Duyn relied on her right under Art 45 TFEU (free movement of workers • UK Home Office invoked a limitation recognised in the Treaties • Ms van Duyn wanted to work in the UK as a secretary for ‘Scientology’ • UK Home Office policy was to refuse entry to anyone connected with Scientology as its activities were considered socially harmful • An unimplemented Directive said public policy or public security should be based exclusively on the personal conduct of an individual concerned • but UK had not concerned her personal conduct • Test was met in van Duyn

Answer 14

Directives can only be considered for direct effect if they have: a. Either not been transposed within the transposition period b. Or they have been transposed wrongly

Answer 15

• State pension qualifying age for women was 60 v 65 for men • Marshall was dismissed from her job aged 62 (employer had allowed her to work for longer) because she qualified for a state pension • brought discrimination claim based on an unimplemented Directive • Transposition period had long expired

Answer 16

• Ms Wells challenged a planning permission granted to the private owners of a quarry • environmental impact assessment as required by a certain Directive had not been carried out • If Wells wins, then planning permission will be revoked and the private owners of the quarry will be negatively affected by direct effect - legal certainty? • ECJ: • “mere adverse repercussions on the rights of third parties, even if the repercussions are certain, do not justify preventing an individual from invoking the provisions of a directive against the MS concerned”

Answer 17

State liability • Approx. 35 employees an Italian firm which had gone insolvent were owed unpaid wages • Italy had been obligated to implement the Insolvency Protection Directive which would have given them insurance against this, but they didn’t implement • It did not meet the requirement of direct effect. Not clear, precise and unconditional.

Answer 18

• French brewery prevented from selling into Germany as its beers did not comply with the German beer purity law • Previously established in Commission v Germany that not allowing beers from other MS to be marketed Germany acted in violation of free movement of goods Refined test for State Liability: • Rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals • The breach must be sufficiently serious (not transposing/incorrectly transposing a Directive is always serious) • There must be a direct casual link between the breach and the damage sustained

Answer 19

• German governed did not transpire the Package Travel Directive within the implantation window - consumers who had booked a package holiday with a tour operator which later became insolvent lost out • “Failure to take any measure to transpose a Directive in order to achieve the result it prescribed within the period laid down for that purpose constitutes per se a serious breach”

Answer 20

• Italy nationalised all electricity providers and former ENEL, the new public electricity board • this happened by an act of the Italian parliament • Costa received a bill of around €2,000 (in todays money) from ENEL, but refused to pay • argument: ENEL had been established unlawfully (contrary to EU law) • and therefore: Costa did not have a contract with ENEL and thus did not owe ENEL anything • EU Law: obliged MS to report measures potentially causing market distortions to the Commission; provides for free movement of services; and prohibits discriminatory State monopolies We know from Costa v ENEL that EU Law prevails over MS legislation, and MS courts must dis-apply contravening MS law Reasoning based on ‘effet utile’ (the practical effectiveness of EU Law)

Answer 21

EU Law v Domestic constitutional law • Case concerning EU customs regulations • company had obtained an export licence allowing it to export 20,000 tons of maize meal • had to lodge a deposit with German customs in accordance with the EU Regulations • company ended up not exporting the full amount of 20,000 tons • under the Regulation it lost its entire deposit • Claimant invoked the German constitution to argue that two Regulations are not valid in Germany EU Law prevails over constitutional rights

Answer 22

• Simmenthal had imported a consignment of beef from France into Italy • was charged a veterinary inspection fee • fee was due under an Italian piece of legislation • national court in Italy considered this fee to be contrary to EU Law: free movement of goods In Italy: only the constitutional court has the power to declare acts of the Italian parliament null and void

Answer 23

• Facts: ECJ found that France had failed to fulfil its obligations under two EU fisheries regulations • especially re mesh size of fishing nets • in the aftermath Commission undertook several visits to French ports and found that judgement had not been complied with • Court asked France to pay a lump sum of 20 million plus a further daily penalty for every six months that France doesn’t comply