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

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Could notification be withdrawn?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

42
Q

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

43
Q

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

44
Q

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

45
Q

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

46
Q

Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate [2013] CSOH 70

47
Q

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

48
Q

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

49
Q

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

50
Q

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

51
Q

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

52
Q

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

53
Q

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

54
Q

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

55
Q

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

56
Q

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

57
Q

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

58
Q

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

59
Q

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

60
Q

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

61
Q

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

62
Q

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

63
Q

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

64
Q

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

65
Q

Case C–331/88 Fedesa (1990))

66
Q

Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein (1970)

67
Q

Francovich and others v Italy (1991)

68
Q

Pubblico Ministero v Ratti (1979)

69
Q

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

70
Q

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

71
Q

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

72
Q

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

73
Q

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

74
Q

Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC and Google In

75
Q

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

76
Q

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

77
Q

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

78
Q

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

79
Q

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

80
Q

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

81
Q

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

82
Q

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

83
Q

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

84
Q

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

85
Q

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

86
Q

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

87
Q

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

88
Q

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

89
Q

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

90
Q

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

91
Q

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

92
Q

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

93
Q

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

94
Q

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

95
Q

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

96
Q

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

97
Q

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

98
Q

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

99
Q

• Bluhme (C-67/97) [1998] ECR I-8033

100
Q

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

EU Law (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions