enforcement Flashcards
principle of decentralised enforcement
the primary responsibility for enforcing EU rules lies with national authorities and courts, ensuring uniform application while respecting national legal systems. Applies irrespective of type of legislative competence.
own / direct enforcement areas
*Competition law
*Foreign trade law
*Union funds
*Research and science funding
*Cross-sectional tasks (human resources, budget, internal organisation)
principle of procedural autonomy
The principle of procedural autonomy in EU law means that, in the absence of harmonised EU rules, MS are free to regulate procedural aspects of enforcing EU law, provided they respect the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
limits to procedural autonomy
Rewe-Zentralfinanz:
— principle of equivalence (cannot be less favourable than for domestic provisions)
— principle of effectiveness (cannot make impossible or excessively difficult to access these procedures)
— to ensure full judicial protection, founded on principle of sincere cooperation (Art. 4 (3) TEU) and right of effective remedy (Art. 19 (1) TEU)
conditions for granting interim measures against EU law
→ MS court has serious doubts about validity
→ preliminary ruling has been referred
→ matter of urgency and threat of irreparable damage
→ MS court takes due account of EU interest
→ MS court has taken due account of CJEU case law
principle of res iudicata
final judicial decisions cannot be relitigated, providing legal certainty and stability by preventing the same dispute from being reopened once it has been conclusively resolved by a court
principle of legal certainty
EU law requires that laws be clear, precise, and predictable so that individuals can understand their rights and obligations, ensuring stability and fairness in legal systems.
requirements for obligation to reopen proceedings
Kühne & Heitz
1. under national law, it has the power to do so
2. decision has become final at a national court ruliung at last instance
3. was adopted without referring a preliminary ruling
4. person concerned complained immediately after becoming aware of decision of Court
direct effect
EU provision becomes the immediate source of law for the national court or administrator. No further implementing act is necessary for its application within the national legal order.
→Van Gend en Loos (1962)
conditions for direct effect (justiciability)
— individual right or obligation,
—sufficiently clear and precise wording,
— without restriction or further enforcement conditions barring its immediate enforcement
vertical direct effect of directives
Ratti Case:
— if directive has not been transposed in time
— or there was error in transposition,
— or if transposed but not applied correctly
requirements for vertical direct effect
1) General conditions for direct effect
2) Error in implementation: no implementation,
incorrect implementation or the MS implemented a
directive correctly, but it is not applied correctly in practice
3) Time-limit for implementation has passed
pre-emptive effect of directives and standstill obligation
before the transposition deadline, Member States must not adopt measures that seriously undermine the directive’s objectives (Inter-Environnement Wallonie), even though the directive is not yet fully applicable.
methods used instead of horizontal direct effect of directives
(1) interpreting the meaning of state
(2) interpretation of national law in line with directive
(3) triangular situations and incidental effect of directives
(4) directives representing general principles
(5) Benefits of a regulation that are made conditional with a directive
(1) broader interpretation of meaning of a state
Entities controlled by the state, e.g. public undertakings, universities, undertakings with special rights → de-facto regulatory power
— full or majority ownership
— minority ownership if it is associated with special rights that allow for decisive influence over strategic decisions (eg. veto over certain business decisions)
— special rights granted to public authorities: supervisory rights over management, appointment and dismissal, influence via financing obligations
golden shares
special rights retained by Member States in privatised companies, which is often ruled as restricting free movement of capital unless justified by overriding public interest.
(2) duty of constituent interpretation of national law in line with EU law
van Colson Case:
Applies to all national law and any state authority!
Applies even before transposition period has lapsed!
Limits:
— no contra legem interpretation
— cannot result in the imposition or aggravation of criminal liability on an individual
→ blurring boundary with indirect effect of directives and horizontal direct effect: Océano Group
(3) triangular situation and incidental effect of directives
Delena Wells:
individuals could challenge the failure of Member States to implement directives, even if the directive had not been fully transposed into national law, leading to potential adverse consequences for individuals.
CIA Security:
national technical regulations not notified to the European Commission, as required by the directive, cannot be enforced against individuals.
(4) directives representing general principles
Mangold, Kücüdeveci:
directives can represent general principles of EU law, such as the principle of non-discrimination based on age. These principles are directly applicable in Member States because they derive from primary EU law, meaning individuals can rely on them even before full transposition into national law.
limits to indirect effect
- No contra legem interpretation
- Cannot result in the imposition or aggravation of criminal liability on an individual
conditions for MS liability
- Breach of EU law by MS through act or ommission
- Breached provision intended to confer rights on individual
- Sufficiently qualified and serious breach
- Damages were inflicted
- Causal link breach and damages
conditions for sufficiently qualified breach
— MS does not bring its law in line with CJEU case law
— directive was not transposed in time
— MS deviates from clear wording of Directive
— infringement persists after legal situation was clarified
justiciability
capacity of a legal issue to be addressed and adjudicated by a court: the issue must be clear enough and sufficiently concrete: it must indicate the parties obligated and entitled by and the precise scope and conditions of that entitlement.
principle of good adminsitration
complaint may be lodged by MS or EU institution or by individuals for the Commission, which must exercise dutiful discretion whether to pursue the claim, but can prioritise cases and is not required to act.
→ complainant can bring a case before CJEU agaisnt Commission for decision or non-decision
- Proceedings are free of charge and relatively simple with no risk of additional legal costs
- Potentially long duration
- Unclear prospect of success: Commission is not obligated to pursue the complaint.
- After cessation of infringement, no further claims such as damages are available.
