Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

EU Law > Case Law > Flashcards

Case Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Andy Wightman and Ors v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2018] CSIH 62 –

A

Could notification be withdrawn?
Much discussion about possibility of revoking notice
Brexit
sought decision whether notification could be revoked as a matter of law. Court of Session made preliminary reference to CJEU. Answer: notification could be revoked.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Elizabeth Webster v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2018] EWHC 1543 Admin

A

Brexit- had withdrawal been taken?
challenged the decision on basis that referendum act did not stipulate outcome would be legally binding. Challenge failed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Miller No 1) [2017] UKSC 5

A

Brexit- who has power to notify?
challenged PM’s power to make decision to notify without Parliamentary Approval. UKSC decided that an Act of Parliament was required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (case 66/85) [1986] ECR 2121 [16-17]

A

Free movement of persons
Autonomous definition of workers
Free movement of workers shall be secured within the union

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (case 53/81) [1982] ECR 1035 [17] [16] ‘

A

Free-movement of workers
Part time workers s45

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Case C-292/89 Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745: [11]-[13]

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Case 139/85 Kempf vStaatssecretaris vanJustitie [1986] ECR 1741, paragraph 13

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (case 196/87) [1988] ECR 6159

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Van Gend en Loos Case 26/62 [1963] at 11

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL vBosman (C-415/93) [1995] ECR I-4921

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Clean Car Autoservice GmbH v Landeshauptmann von Wien (C-350/96)[1998] ECR I-2521

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Cristini v Société nationale des chemins de fer français (case 32/75) [1975]ECR 1085

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Groener v Minister for Education and the City of Dublin VocationalEducational Committee (case 379/87) [1989] ECR 3967

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (C-281/98) [2000] ECR I-4139

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Commission v Belgium (case 149/79) [1982] ECR 1845

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Commission v Italy (case 225/85) [1987] ECR 2625

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Commission v Luxembourg (C-473/93) [1996] ECR I-3207

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Van Duyn v Home Office (case 41/74) [1974] ECR 1337

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Adoui & Cornuaille v Belgium (cases 115 & 116/81) [1982] ECR 1665

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R v Bouchereau (case 30/77) [1977] ECR 1999

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (c-34/09)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

• Zhu and Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-200/02) [2004] ECR I-9925

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Rendon Marin v Administracion del Estado (c-165/14)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Chavez-Vilchez v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (C-133/15)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Singh v Minister for Justice and Equality (c-218/14)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (C-55/94) [1995] ECR I-4165

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

• Reisebüro Broede v Gerd Sandker (C-3/95) [1996] ECR I-6511

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Höfner and Elser v Macrotron GmbH (case C-41/90)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Case 15/74, Centrafarm [1974] ECR 1147], para. 41)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Joined Cases T-68, 77, 78/89, Italian Flat Glass [1992] ECR II-1403, para 357

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Whish & Bailey 2018 p131)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Allianz Hungária, Case C-32/11 [2013] 4 CMLR 25, page

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Case C-179/90 Merci Convenzionali Porto di Genova[1991] ECR I-5889.

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Bayer v Commission (2000)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

85/76 Hoffman-La Roche & Co AG v Commission [1979] ECR 461
3)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Case C-379/98 Preussen Elektra AG v Schleswag AG(200

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Case C-374/17 A-Brauerei (2018)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Dorsch Consult (C-54/96) [1997] ECR I-4961

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Wightman v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (C-621/18) ECLI:EU:C:2018:999

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Dorsch Consult (C-54/96) [1997] ECR I-4961

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Slob v Productschap Zuivel (C-236/02) [2004] ECR I-1861

A
42
Q

Costa v E.N.E.L. (Case 6-64) [1964] ECR 58

A
43
Q

Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost (Case 314/85) [1987] ECR 4199

A
44
Q

Da Costa (Cases 28-30/62) [1963] ECR 31

A
45
Q

CILFIT v Ministry of Health (Case 283/81) [1982] ECR 3415 para.16

A
46
Q

Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate [2013] CSOH 70

A
47
Q

Plaumann & Co v Commission (Case 25/62) [1963] ECR 95

A
48
Q

Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council (C-50/00P) [2002] ECR I-6677

A
49
Q

○ France v Commission (C-327/91) [1994] ECR I-3641

A
50
Q

Maizena GmbH v Council (Case 139/79) [1980] ECR 3393

A
51
Q

Giuffrida v Council (105/75) [1976] ECR 1395

A
52
Q

Star Fruit Company SA v Commission (Case 247/87) [1989] ECR 291

A
53
Q

Commission v Greece (C-387/97) [2000] ECR I-5047

A
54
Q

Commission v Spain (C-278/01) [2003] ECR I-14141

A
55
Q

Commission v France (C-304/02) [2005] ECR I-6263

A
56
Q

Commission v Netherlands (Case 96/81) [1982]ECR 1791

A
57
Q

Commission v Germany (Case 29/84) [1985] ECR1661

A
58
Q

Commission v UK (C-146/89) [1991] ECR I-3533

A
59
Q

Commission v Italy (Case 7/61) [1961] ECR 317

A
60
Q

Commission v Greece (Case 226/87)[1988] ECR 3611

A
61
Q

Commission v Belgium (Case 293/85)[1988] ECR 305

A
62
Q

Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy (C-6/90 and C-9/90) [1991] ECR I-5357

A
63
Q

Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany (C-46/93 & C-48/93) [1996] ECR I-102

A
64
Q

R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd.

A
65
Q

Case C–331/88 Fedesa (1990))

A
66
Q

Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein (1970)

A
67
Q

Francovich and others v Italy (1991)

A
68
Q

Pubblico Ministero v Ratti (1979)

A
69
Q

Marshall v Southampton and South-West Area Health Authority (Teaching) (No 1) (1986)

A
70
Q

Petra Engler v Janus Versand [2005] —CASEC-27/02 [51]

A
71
Q

C-21/76 - HandelskwekerijBier v Mines de Potasse d’Alsace

A
72
Q

Sakhanov v Russia (2016), Appl no 16599/16

A
73
Q

Google Inc v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Consteja Gonzales(C-131/12)

A
74
Q

Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC and Google In

A
75
Q

Commission v Italy (statistical levy) (case 24/68) [1969] ECR 193

A
76
Q

Rewe-Zentralfinanz GmbH v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Westfalen-Lippe (case 39-73) [1973] ECR 1039

A
77
Q

Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v SA Ch Brachfeld & Sons (cases 2and 3-69) [1969] ECR 211

A
78
Q

Air Liquide Industries Belgium SA v Ville de Seraing (C-393/04 and C-41/05)[2006] ECR I-5293

A
79
Q

Commission v Germany (case 18/87) [1988] ECR 5427

A
80
Q

Conceria Daniele Bresciani v Amministrazione Italiana delle Finanze(case 87-75) [1976] ECR 129

A
81
Q

Commission v Italy (Art Treasures) Case 7/68, [1968] ECR 423

A
82
Q

Jägerskiöld v Gustafsson Case C-97/98 [1999] ECR I-7319

A
83
Q

Commission v Belgium (Wallonian Waste) Case C-2/90, [1992] ECR I-4431

A
84
Q

R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion in World Farming Ltd (C-1/96) [1998] ECR I-1251

A
85
Q

Commission v France (Spanish strawberries) (C-265/95) [1997] ECR I-6959

A
86
Q

• Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (case 8/74) [1974] ECR 837

A
87
Q

International Fruit Company NV, Rotterdam v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit (cases 51-54/71) [1971] ECR 1107

A
88
Q

Commission v Ireland (“Buy Irish”) (case 249/81) [1982] ECR 4005

A
89
Q

PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG (C-379/98) [2001] ECR 1-2099

A
90
Q

Commission v Germany (Weinbrand) (case 12/74) [1975] ECR 181

A
91
Q

Walter Rau v De Smeldt PvbA (case 261/81) [1982] ECR 3961

A
92
Q

Keck (C-267/91 & C-268/91) [1993] ECR 6097, [15]

A
93
Q

Commission v Italy (Trailers) (C-110/05) [2009] ECR I-159

A
94
Q

Keck and Mithouard (C-267/91 & C-268/91) [1993] ECR 6097

A
95
Q

Åklagaren v Mickelsson, Roos (C-142/05) [2009] ECR 4273

A
96
Q

Conegate v HM Customs and Excise (case 121/85) [1986] ECR 1007

A
97
Q

Commission v UK (turkeys) (case 40/82) [1984] ECR 2793

A
98
Q

Commission v Denmark (Danish bottles) (case 302/86) [1988] ECR 4607

A
99
Q

• Bluhme (C-67/97) [1998] ECR I-8033

A
100
Q

Case27/76 United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v Commission of theEuropean Communities

A

EU Law (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions