EU cases Flashcards
Costa v ENEL
EU law takes priority over national law (the doctrine of supremacy); EU law is a special kind of international law
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (Solange I)
EU law takes priority over national constitutional law (Germany resisted this ruling); fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of EU law - EU law which breaches such rights will be reviewed
Simmenthal
EU law must be applied in its entirety; existing incompatible national law is automatically inapplicable and the creation of new incompatible national law is prohibited
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
EU law only takes primacy over national law in the UK as a result of the 1972 Act (retaining sovereignty); some fundamental rights will be retained post-Brexit and others will be lost (though may be replicated)
Re Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft (Solange II)
Germany softened its position - so long as the EU protects fundamental rights to the same extent as the German constitution, the German courts will not place constitutional law above EU law
Brunner v European Union Treaty
The German court maintained its ability to determine the compatibility of EU law and German constitutional law; Germany’s acceptance of supremacy is conditional
B v E (The Lisbon Case)
The ‘identity lock’ makes EU law reviewable in light of basic law; EU law may not prevail in certain areas e.g. war, religion; EU law may not restrict a state’s ability ‘to democratically shape itself’
Honeywell
Incompatible national law is in principle invalid to ensure uniform effectiveness of EU law, but the primacy of EU law cannot be comprehensive
Czech pension case
The only case to refuse to apply EU law over national law
Van Gend en Loos
The EC is a ‘new legal order’, for the benefit of which member states limit their sovereignty; EU Articles can be relied upon by individuals in national courts
Defrenne v SABENA
Articles which are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional have horizontal direct effect; prospective effect (reconcilable with legal principle?); occasionally the ECJ draws from international instruments other than the ECHR e.g. the European Social Charter
Van Duyn v Home Office
In order for directives to have vertical direct effect they must be sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional
Ratti
For a directive to have direct effect the implementation period must have passed
Inter-Environment Wallonie
During a directive’s implementation period member states must refrain from enacting provisions conflicting with the attainment of the aim of that directive
Marshall v Southampton and SW Hampshire Health Authority
Individuals can rely on Directives in national courts against the state or an emanation of the state (e.g. a hospital) but not private individuals
Faccini Dori
Directives do not have horizontal direct effect
Foster v British Gas
An emanation of the state
(1) is made responsible by the state
(2) provides a public service under the control of the state, and
(3) has for that purpose special powers
Farrell
One of the three Foster conditions will suffice for an emanation of the state (did not explicitly overrule Foster)
Becker v Finanzamt Munster-Innenstadt
The direct effect of directives comes into force once the time limit for implementation is up; a tax authority is an emanation of the state
Fratelli Costanzo v Milano
Local authorities are an emanation of the state
Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
Police are an emanation of the state
Mangold v Helm
Non-discrimination is a general principle of EU law which may be relied upon by individuals against individuals
Von Colson
National law should be interpreted in line with the wording and purpose of EU law, which does not have to be clear/precise/unconditional; there must be an effective remedy following state liability
Harz v Deutsche Tradax
EU law has horizontal indirect effect
Marleasing SA v La Comercial
Indirect effect requires courts to interpret all national law in line with EU law - not just law implementing the directive, and including law predating the directive and law with no specific connection to the directive
Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garantira Salaria
If national law completely contradicts EU law so that they cant be interpreted as compatible, indirect effect will not operate
Luciano Arcaro
You cant apply indirect effect where doing so will give rise to criminal liability
Kolpinghuis Nijimegen
While indirect effect cannot give rise to criminal liability, it can give rise to other negative consequences; interpretation by indirect effect must be compatible with general principles
Kucukdeveci
General principles of EU law require the interpretation of national law where the case falls in the scope of EU law; confirms Mangold
Romer
There is a general principle of EU law of non-discrimination, including based on sexual orientation
Digital Rights Ireland v Minister for Communications
The Charter of Fundamental Rights has vertical direct effect; any breach of the Charter must be provided for by law, respect its essence, be proportional and necessary, and genuinely meet objectives of general interest
AMS case
Principles within the Charter of Fundamental Rights which are not specific enough cannot be employed by individuals; potential for horizontal direct effect if more specific (not directly addressed, need more case law)
Antonio Munoz Cia SA v Frumar Ltd
Regulations have direct effect
Amsterdam Bulb
A national measure will only breach EU law if it alters, obstructs, or obscures the direct effect of a regulation
Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein
Sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional decisions have direct effect according to the principle of effectiveness
Carp
A decision addressed to member states does not have horizontal direct effect (must be addressed to individuals)
Kortas
Even directives which member states may derogate from under the EC have direct effect
Delena Wells v SoS for Transport
Vertical direct effect is not precluded where it will have adverse consequences for third parties (though it is if it imposes legal obligations)
Adeneler
Indirect effect only applies once the implementation period has expired, though member states must not interpret national law in a way that compromises the aims of the EU law
Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz
For indirect effect national courts must interpret all law, not just the law implementing the directive, in line with EU law
Francovich v Italy
Established state liability for the failure to implement a directive; three part test:
- The conferral upon an individual of specific rights
- The content of the rights being identifiable within the directive
- A causal link between the damage to the individual and the state’s breach (determined by national courts)
* overruled by Brasserie*
Commission v Belgium
Under Art 258, the Commission may investigate any organ of the state it believes to be in breach of EU law, even constitutionally independent bodies
Commission v Ireland
Member states must act in good faith and supply the Commission with all requested information when being investigated for a potential breach under Art 258
Commission v Italy (re: ban on pork imports)
Under Art 258 the Commission must provide the member state in question with a list of reasons for suspicion of breach of EU law
Commission v France (re: Euratom)
An action under Art 258 does not have to be brought within a specific time period
Star Fruit v Commission
Individuals cannot make the Commission bring actions against member states under Art 258
Commission v France (re: blockades)
A member state may avoid sanction under Art 258 if it can show that implementing the law would have implications for public order which it could not deal with
Commission v Italy
The fact that a violation of EU law was unintentional is no defence to an Art 258 challenge
Commission v Greece
A member state cannot claim the illegality of some EU law in defence to an Art 258 challenge
Rewe v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland
If your rights under EU law are infringed by the state, the state determines the damages awarded but this must be equivalent to if your rights under national law were infringed
Unibet
Domestic provisions governing individual actions for breaches of EU law must be equivalent to similar domestic actions (equivalence) and must not make the access of EU rights practically impossible or excessively difficult (effectiveness)
Brasserie du Pecheur v Germany and Factortame v UK (Factortame III)
Test for state liability:
1. the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals;
2. the breach must be sufficiently serious; and
3. there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation and the damage sustained;
directly effective EU law and the legislature’s conduct can give rise to state liability; paras 55-57
Dillenkofer v Germany
If a state has not bothered to implement a directive this is automatically a sufficiently serious breach
Lomas v UK
The UK had no discretion in how to implement an article on exports, so this was a sufficiently serious breach
R v HM Treasury ex. parte British Telecommunications
Implementing a directive wrong was not sufficiently serious as the mistake was made in good faith, the directives were unclear, and there was no prior CJEU ruling on the matter
Haim
A public body such as a dentistry association is considered part of the state for the purpose of state liability
Kobler v Austria
A decision of the court of last instance which manifestly infringes EU law gives rise to state liability, dismissing arguments of res judicata, independence and authority
Traghetti del Mediterraneo v Italy
State liability does not have to arise from intentional fault or serious misconduct - it can be from a interpretation of law or finding of fact; a court of last instance can cause state liability
Palmisani
The Italian court was given discretion to determine whether a 1 year time limit on compensation met the principle of equivalence
Transportes Urbanos
The requirement of exhaustion of all domestic remedies breached the principle of equivalence as it did not apply in claims for breaches of the constitution
Stockhold Lindopark
Francovich-style compensation should not exclude national remedies as well (state liability + direct effect)
Societe Comteb
Compensation may be preferable to national remedies (i.e. state liability over direct effect) if there are restrictive rules around national remedies
Van Schijndel and Van Veen v SPF
When deciding whether a national provision makes the application of EU law practically impossible or excessively difficult, look to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features
Bergaderm
The decisive test for whether conduct was sufficiently serious for state liability is whether the state manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion
R v Kirk
Legal certainty is a general principle of EU law
Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission
Legitimate expectation is a general principle of EU law
Ruckdeschel
Non-discrimination is a general principle of EU law
Artegodan v Commission
The ‘precautionary principle’ (adopting measures to combat a serious threat which has not been proven with scientific certainty) is a general principle of EU law
Geitling v High Authority
The ECJ used to be (1962) unwilling to utilise EU law to protect fundamental rights
Nold v Commission
International human rights treaties and common national constitutional traditions are the primary sources of general principles
Hauer v Land Rheinland Pfalz
EU fundamental rights are drawn from the ECHR, ECtHR judgements, international treaties, and national constitutions (though taking principles from a single member state will fragment the Community)
Kadi I and II
EU legislation was annulled for breach of the rights to property and fair trial; EU courts must review EU measures for breach of fundamental rights
Wachauf v Gemany
Member states must comply with fundamental rights whenever they implement EU law, even if on its face it has nothing to do with rights
ERT
Member states must comply with fundamental rights when given permission to derogate from EU law
Kremzow v Austria
Member states do not have to comply with fundamental rights if the challenged conduct falls outside of the scope of EU law
Parliament v Council – Family Reunification Directive
Pre-Lisbon Treaty the Charter was not legally binding
Akerberg Fransson
Member states must comply with fundamental rights when they act within the scope of EU law, even if they are neither implementing or derogating from EU law e.g. imposing obligations in line with the Treaties
Cruciano Siragusa
There must be a connection between the national measure and EU law beyond them being closely connected or having an indirect impact on one another; consider whether the legislation is intended to implement EU law, the nature of that legislation, whether it pursues objectives other than those covered by EU law, whether there are specific rules of EU law on the matter or capable of affecting it.
Melloni
You cannot ‘opt-out’ of EU law by preferring a national constitution - EU law is supreme
NS v SoS for the Home Department
Article 1 of the opt-out from the Charter does not except the UK or Poland from the provisions of the charter
Stauder v City of Ulm
For the first time, prompted by concerns around the doctrine of supremacy, the ECJ recognised fundamental rights as general principles of EU law
Commission v Bavarian Lager
The ECHR is not formally binding and so may be extended or diverted from; the ECHR is a floor not a ceiling
Mannesmannrohren-Werke v Commission
Common national constitutional traditions cannot be drawn from one member state’s constitution alone
AM&S v Commission
(AG) a general principle can be drawn from national constitutional traditions even if its ‘conceptual origin’ and ‘the scope of its application in detail’ varies between states
Akzo Noble
A general principle cannot be drawn from national constitutional traditions if this does not reflect a ‘uniform tendency’ within the member states
Google Spain v AEPD
The EU judiciary may enforce rights by interpreting EU measures in line with these rights e.g. the EU Data Processing Directive to include a right to be forgotten
Rutili v Minister for the Interior
When member states apply rights-based EU measures they are bound by general principles of EU law
Schmidberger v Austria
A member state may derogate from fundamental obligations to protect other rights e.g. restricting free movement in order to protect freedom of expression and assembly
Bosphorus v Ireland
The ECtHR held that if a state acts under EU law which provides equivalent rights protection to the ECHR this is acceptable, but where it is a lower protection this is not
Michaud v France
The ECtHR is only happy to reduce state supervision if EU law protects rights to the same extent as the ECHR (confirming Bosphorus)
Avotins v Latvia
The mutual recognition system between the member states that each is observing FRs but this must not leave any gap for deficiencies in human rights protection
Haegeman v Belgium
The ECJ can interpret agreements between the Community and non-members under Article 177 (‘acts of the institutions’)
Parti Ecologiste ‘Les Verts’ v European Parliament
Actions for annulment can be brought against the European Parliament (was not expressly provided for in Article 173); subsequently endorsed in Maastricht Treaty
Chernobyl
Actions for annulment can be brought by the European Parliament (was not expressly provided for in Article 173); subsequently endorsed in Maastricht Treaty; court does not consider itself bound by the treaties where this conflicts with the interests of the Union
SPUC v Grogan
ECJ rejected argument based on ‘higher’ ‘natural’ law - abortion is grossly immoral
Factortame II
National law which conflicts with EU law will be disapplied; any limitation of sovereignty was accepted voluntarily (Bridge)
Nicolo
The French court rejected the ECJ’s claim that EU law prevails over even constitutional national law
Fragd
The Italian Constitutional Court demonstrated willingness to test EU law against protection of human rights within the Italian Constitution
Frontini v Ministero delle Finanze
The Italian Constitutional Court identified the source of EU competence as within Article 11 of the Italian Constitution
Café Jacques Vabres
The Cour de Cassation held that EU supremacy is provided for in the French Constitution (Article 55)
