Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

PUBLIC LAW 2 > EU LAW CASES > Flashcards

EU LAW CASES Flashcards

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

Foto-frost (general)

A

Judicial review is the way in which the CJEU reviews and ensures the correct application of EU law is being carried out by the institutions`

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

standing- act addressed to the applicant

A

IBM- If an act is addressed to an applicant then they automatically have standing

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

Standing- direct concern- case 1

A

NV FRUIT-

  1. there must be legal causation between the act and the legal effect on the individual
  2. must have a legal effect on the individual
  3. must be solely from the EU without any fiddling from the MS
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Standing- direct concern - case 2

A

Bock-

  1. must have this narrow interpretation because there are 28 legal systems in the EU, so must make it harder to get
  2. the individual was told they had direct concern until or if the MS became involved in implementation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Standing- direct concern- case 3

A

Dreyfus-

  1. MS must have no discretion when it comes to the act
  2. if the MS implements it differently to how it is intended they won’t have DC
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Standing- individual concern- main case (1)

A

Plaumann-closed groups case
an individual can only have IC if the act affects them in a unique way that won’t affect anyone else.
unique legal position

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

Standing- individual concern- case 2

A

Spijker- no matter how small the group, even if you can narrow it down to one person, but there is still the chance of people joining in the future then it is an open group

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

Standing- individual concern- case 3

A

KFC- if there is a pre-existing legal relationship between the people and it has already been established and no one can join newly then it is a closed group

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

Standing- individual concern- case 4

A

PP- if there is a contract stating the members already then it is a closed group

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

Standing- individual concern- case 5

A

Toepfer- confirmed Plaumann

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

Exceptions to Plaumann- 3 cases

A

IP rights- Codorniu- intellectual property rights will exempt you.
Procedural involvement- such as aid
exceptional circumstances such as competition and anti-dumping - LES verts and Extramet

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

what Quashed these exceptions

A

UPA- even though it was a case regarding aid it was not allowed individual concern

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

What case tried to change the law again after UPA

A

Jego Quere- CA rejected higher courts argument- could not lower the idea of standing to only regard direct concern and to say it doesn’t matter about other individuals involved

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

Regulatory acts- case 1

A

Inuit- defined regulatory act as a non-legislative act of general application.
which means directives, decisions and regulations cannot be caught under its scope

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

Regulatory acts- case 2

A

Microban-
the first case to satisfy this legal route
satisfied DC
stated how general application meant it was addressed to all member states
implementing measures means there doesnt need to be any further implementation, it is done automatically

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

Regulatory acts- case 3

A

PS- there is a difference between implementing measures and direct concern

17
Q

Regulatory acts- case 4

A

Telefonica- implementing measures is very narrow and means any measure used to put an act into operation

18
Q

Standing- for groups- case 1

A

Federolio- set out 3 criteria that need to be met in order for groups/associations to be able to get standing:

  1. an act grants them procedural rights
  2. the members in the group are all individually and directly concerned
  3. their position as negotiator in the EU is affected by the act and its interests of the association are affected
19
Q

Standing- for groups- case 2

A

Greenpeace
agreed with federolio
protecting the environment rights were not seen as being individually concerned because everyone is concerned with the environment

20
Q

Reviewable acts case 1

A

IBM

a preparatory act was not seen as reviewable because it did not affect the person’s legal position

21
Q

Reviewable acts case 2

A

SFEI

must affect the person’s legal position for it to be reviewable

22
Q

reviewable acts case 3

A

max.mobil

the case must be opened/must be an open investigation to be reviewable

23
Q

Grounds of review- lack of competence case 1

A

Tobacco case
the decision-maker must act within treaty articles, must act in line with the law
principle of conferral

24
Q

Grounds of review- lack of competence case 2

A

France v commission
even though the commission had the power to apply the rules it did not give them the power to conclude on a deal with a non-memeber country

25
Q

reviewable acts case 4

A

BASF- non-existent acts

Cannot annul an act if it doesn’t exist in the first place

26
Q

Grounds of review- misuse of power case

A

Sermes
cannot use their power for something other than what they are allowed to in the article
they intended to use power for something other than what was meant to be

27
Q

Grounds of review- error of assessment case

A

tetra laval
no mertis review - all they check to make sure there was no error of assessment is to make sure it is:
accurate, complete, reliable and consistent

28
Q

Grounds of review- rights of process case

A

Kadi
entitled to a fair hearing
must be able to make a representation and defend their rights

29
Q

Grounds of review- breach of any rule of law list of cases

A 
proportionality- Fedesa
fundamental rights- x v commission
legal certainty- heinrich
legitimate expectations- staff salaries case
 discriminiation-Ruckdeschel
30
Q

Grounds of review- fundamental rights case

A

X v comission- the right to privacy is not a funamental right

31
Q

Grounds of review- legal certainty case

A

Heinrich- must tell the individual what rights they have and obligations they must follow

32
Q

indirect challenges - 277 CASE

A

Worhmann- art 277 is not a preferred route because it can only be enacted in line with another challenge
plea of illegality

33
Q

indirect challenges - 267 case

A

Tobacco case- can use preliminary rulings as an alternative as well

PUBLIC LAW 2 (1 decks)

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