EU Law Past questions

Question 1

Regarding the Sources of EU Law

When a measure is required to regulate a situation that has developed differently across the Member States of the EU—such as the types of objects prohibited on commercial passenger flights—and the aim is to harmonize the rules so that they are exactly the same in every Member State, down to the smallest detail, with no variation from state to state, which form of EU act is more adequate to achieve this?

A) A Directive
B) A Regulation
C) A Recommendation

Answer 1

B) A Regulation

A Regulation leaves no room for any difference in implementation between Member States and completely rules out cases of non-compliance or improper implementation—a problem that often occurs with the implementation of Directives.

Question 2

Cases Related to State Liability for Breach of EU Law Obligations

The following cases are all considered related to State Liability for breaching its obligations under EU law: Francovich, Kobler, Ferreira da Silva. These cases could be paired off according to the part of the state that is involved. Which is more correct?

A) Francovich alone, and Kobler and Ferreira da Silva together
B) Francovich and Kobler together, and Ferreira da Silva alone.

Answer 2

A) With regard to a criteria that controls for PARTS of the State involved:

Francovich targets State Liability for breach of duties under the treaties due to the inertia of PARLIAMENT, specifically a failure to implement a Directive. In contrast, Kobler and Ferreira da Silva address errors (both less serious and serious) made by the JUDICIARY, i.e., Supreme Courts.

Question 3

The Cassis de Dijon Case

The Cassis de Dijon case has made Dijon very famous. What was the product involved in the case?

A) Mustard
B) Pasta
C) Beer
D) Something else, and it is ____________________________

Answer 3

After choosing your Option, please explain using the Cassis story.

The concept of the Dual Burden Rule:

D: An alcoholic beverage containing blackcurrant (fruit).

A Dual Burden rule is a rule imposed (distinctly or indistinctly) on imported goods by the State of Destination. In the context of the Cassis de Dijon case, this rule is exemplified by the requirement that, even though goods have complied with production standards elsewhere in the EU, they must adhere to additional (if distinct) standards of the destination state upon entry. For instance, Cassis de Dijon, a blackcurrant liqueur legally produced and sold in France, faced additional requirements before it could be sold in Germany, illustrating the application of a Dual Burden rule.

Question 4

Please explain, using the Cassis de Dijon or the Chocolate Case story (or any other one that helps you):

The Concept of Indistinctly Applicable Rule

Answer 4

An indistinctly applicable rule is a rule that is applied both to imported goods and to goods produced within the national territory, regardless of the fact that it may affect them in different ways.

See RAU case.

Question 5

Please provide and explanation of the concept of “reverse discrimination” with a concrete example.

Answer 5

A situation in which the State makes a policy choice to impose burdens on its own nationals/producers that it does not impose or waives for foreign goods/nationals.

See: PASTA CASE

Question 6

The ECJ has considered certain national rules related to the market and carved them out from its case-law against MEQRs.

Question: If a Member State requires that bubble gum is wrapped if sold individually in automatic machines, is that, at first glance, an MEQR?

A) Yes
B) No
Please take into account that we are not asking if the measure is justifiable. We are asking if structurally it is an MEQR.

Answer 6

Bubble gum wrapping is a PRODUCT REQUIREMENT (such as other measures of packaging/labeling) since it is capable of affecting the importation of the same product produced elsewhere JUST BECAUSE it is not wrapped.

Question 7

7 - Again, coming back to the premise in Question 6 with regard to the ECJ’s crusade against MEQRs, if a Member State prohibits “sales at loss” within its territory and applies the rule both to national traders and to importers, is that considered an MEQR by the ECJ?

A) Yes
B) No

Answer 7

KECK Case:

Sale at loss is the typical “selling arrangement” that falls outside Article 34 and is NOT considered an MEQR.

Question 8

Which case introduced the concept of “Partial Access” into the EU access to documents policy?

A) Cassis de Dijon
B) Marleasing
C) Petrie
D) Hautala

Answer 8

After choosing an option, explain what “Partial Access” is:

D) Situation in which a document is redacted and released since only parts of its content collide with the exceptions to Public Access to Documents.

Question 9

Is Article 7 of Regulation 1049/2001 a mechanism of Negative Silence?
A) Yes
B) No

Answer 9

After choosing an option explain what “Negative silence” is

B, Article 7 merely entitles the applicant to lodge a confirmatory application. It is article 8 that the legal fiction of silence is established and therein the entitlement is a real challenge of the negative decision before a court or Ombudsman.

Question 10

Is a Chinese Citizen always and at the most an “applicant by Grace” within regulation 1049 /2001?

Answer 10

No, he becomes an applicant by right if he is a resident within the EU?

Question 11

Which are the voting rules that have been established for the current members of the EU to the process of an external candidate applying to enter the EU?

That is, (i) where do we find the rule and (ii) do all of them have to say yes?

Answer 11

(i) Article 49 TEU
(ii) Yes, Unanimity

Question 12

What are the voting rules that have been established for the current members of the EU when one of them clearly states that it wants to secede from the EU?

That is, (i) where do we find the rule and (ii) do all of them have to say yes?

Answer 12

(i) Article 50 TEU
(ii) No- only majority

Question 13

That is, (i) where do we find the rule and (ii) do all of them have to say yes?

Answer 13

• Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community - Entered into force: 23 July 1952
• Treaty of Rome - Entered into force: 1 January 1958
• Merger Treaty - Brussels Treaty - Entered into force: 1 July 1967
  Single European Act - Entered into force: 1 July 1987
  Treaty on European Union - Maastricht Treaty - Entered into force: 1 November 1993
  Treaty of Amsterdam - Entered into force: 1 May 1999
  Treaty of Nice - Entered into force: 1 February 2003
  Treaty of Lisbon - Entered into force: 1 December 2009

Question 14

What is a Preliminary Ruling?

Answer 14

This procedure is considered useful when, in a case before a national court, a question of interpretation which is new and of general interest for the uniform application of EU law is raised, or where the existing case-law does not appear to give the necessary guidance to deal with a new legal situation. The national court or tribunal before which a dispute is brought takes sole
responsibility for determining both the need for a request for a preliminary ruling and the relevance
of the questions it submits to the CJEU. Courts submitting a referral should, among other things: be established by law and be permanent; have compulsory jurisdiction; apply the rules of law; and be

Question 15

Does a European Regulation have Direct Effect?

Answer 15

The principle of direct effect enables individuals to immediately invoke a European provision before a national or European court. This principle only relates to certain European acts. regulations always have direct effect. In effect, Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU specifies that regulations are directly applicable in EU countries. There are two aspects to direct effect: a vertical aspect and a horizontal aspect. vertical direct effect is of consequence in relations between
individuals and the country. This means that individuals can invoke a European provision in relation to the country. Horizontal direct effect is consequential in relations between individuals. This means that an individual can invoke a European provision in relation to another individual.

Question 16

Is a European Directive Directly applicable?

Answer 16

A “directive” is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve. However, it is up to the individual countries to devise their own laws on how to reach these goals. EU Directives are not directly applicable, as Member States must implement national legislation, before a prescribed deadline, in order to give effect to them.

Question 17

Describe the 2 stage administrative procedure, referred in articles 7 and 8 of Reg. 1049/2001

Answer 17

The first stage, as in article 7, is an application for access to a document. An acknowledgement of receipt shall be sent to the applicant. Within 15 working days from registration of the application, the institution shall either grant access to the document requested and provide access or partial refusal and inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application. In exceptional cases the time-limit provided may be extended by 15 working days. The second stage, as in article 8, is a confirmatory application. Within 15 working days from registration of the application, the institution shall either grant access to the document requested and provide access or partial refusal, the institution shall inform the applicant of the remedies open to him or her, namely instituting court proceedings against the institution and/or making a complaint to the Ombudsman. In exceptional cases , the time limit may be extended by 15 working days.

Question 18

Is there any discretionary exception in article 4 of Regulation 1049?

Answer 18

A discretionary exception means that the institutions may also refuse access in order to protect the institution’s interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings. With Regulation 1049/2001 all exceptions became mandatory, but they were divided into three separate groups: Article 4/1 - Mandatory with no balancing test; Article 4/2 - Mandatory with a new balancing test and Article 4/3 - Mandatory protecting a qualified harm

Question 19

What happens when the institution does not answer to the applicant’s request in the 15 working days regulated in article 7? What means that silence?

Answer 19

According to Article 7, number 4 of the Regulation 1049/01 when the institution fails to reply within the prescribed time-limit the silence shall entitle the applicant to make a confirmatory application.

Question 20

8. What happens when the institution does not answer to the confirmatory application in the 15 working days regulated in article 8? What means that silence?

Answer 20

Differently from what was said above, according to article 8, number 3 of the Regulation 1049/01, when the institution fails to reply within the prescribed time limit silence shall be considered as a negative reply, so silence means no, and entitles the applicant to institute court proceedings against the institution in General Court or to make a complaint to the Ombudsman

Question 21

Please read the following paragraph carefully

Based ont he analysis of the general theroy on the EU Directives

“A member-state may not apply its internal law - even if it is provided with penal sanctions - which has not yet been adapted in the compliance with the directive, to a person who has complied with the requirements are unconditional and sufficiently precise. “

Choose an answer and Justify (max 10 lines) - quote case-law

A - true but only before the implementation of a directive
B - true but only before the implementation of a directive
C- The sentence is always true, the expiration period is irrelevant
D - the sentence is never true since international law is provided with panel (criminal) sanctions

Answer 21

Correct answer A
Justification is in the Ratti case

Question 22

2. Based on the Analysis of the
   General theory of EU Directives

From the facts-what conclusion may you draw?

The Sixth Directive, which was
adopted on 17 May 1977, provided in Article 1 that the
Member States were to adopt by 1 January 1978 at the latest
the necessary laws, in accordance with the
requirements of the directive. A number of Member States,
including the Federal Republic
of Germany, were unable to make the necessary
modifications within the prescribed period and
therefore the Council, by the Ninth Directive, 78/583/EEC
of 26 June 1978 on the harmonization of the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Official
Journal 1978, L 194, p. 16), extended, in the case of those
Member States, to 1 January 1979 the period laid down in
Article 1 of the Sixth Directive.

It was not until the adoption of the Law of 26 November
1979 (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 1953), which took effect on 1
January 1980, that the Federal
Republic of Germany implemented the Sixth
Directive.

Is there ESTOPPEL between
1 January 1978 and 26 June 1978 and then again between
1 January 1979 and 26 November 1979?

Choose an option and Justify

A - Yes Between 1 January 1978 and 26 June 1978 and then again between 1 January 1979 and 26 November 1979

B- Yes, but only after 26 June 1978

C- No, we cannot find grounds for ESTOPPEL during any period between 1 Jan 1978 and 26 Nov 1979

Answer 22

Correct answer A

Yes since in those periods, the initial deadline (1 Jan 1978) has elapsed and Germany has not implemented the directive. Germany is then in Breach of its duties. The Directive thus gains VDE and ESTOPPEL (kicks in) for 6 months since an extenstion of the deadline takes place, but the extension only operates from 26 June 1978 until 1 Jan 1979. After that, since the State has still not implemented the Directive, the State is once again in breach of its’duties. Once again The Directive gains VDE and ESTOPPEL (kicks in) for 11 months. The situation is only solved definitively on 26 Nov 1979, when the Directive is finally implemented

Question 23

3. We have often said that Doctrine is practically unanimous that EU Directives should not have HORIZONTAL Direct Effect.

However in the Marleasing case, we observe that the ECJ chose to protect a party (La Comercial- in a horizontal dispute) and that party was seeking to rely on a Directive. The other party to Proceedings ( Marleasing) sought to rely on the Spanish Civil Code. The latter should have been amended to comply with a Directive, but the Spanish State did not comply
with the Directive’s instructions.

In that specific case The ECJ asks the national judge to interpret the Civil Code “as if” The Directive had been implemented.

Choose an option and Justify

A. This is known as Indirect effect or harmonious interpretation and the Directive instructed the State to REMOVE a phrase from a List in the Civil Code –“lack of cause”

B. This is known as Indirect effect or harmonious interpretation and The Directive instructed the State to ADD a phrase to a List in the Civil Code –“lack of cause”

C. This is known as vertical direct effect or harmonious interpretation and The Directive instructed the State to ADD a word to a List in the Civil Code –“ESTOPPEL”

Answer 23

Correct Answer A

Grounds: Marleasing V la Comercial

Question 24

4 We have often said that Doctrine is practically unanimous that EU Directives should not have HORIZONTAL Direct Effect. We also know that the ECJ did make an attempt when pursuing the (contentious) avenue of harmonious interpretation to mitigate this barrier of EU law. However, that avenue is not very reassuring due to its lack of clarity.

At one point the ECJ issues
clarifying rulings regarding which type of undertakings/bodies must comply with Directives -once the implementation deadlines have expired- even if the Parliament or Central Govenment has not implemented the directive.

The effect of the above -mentioned rulings is that: if they have their registered seat in the EU, butchers, hairdressing salons and manicure salons, clearly fall within the type of bodies that must comply with non-implemented Directives.

Choose an Option and justify

A- Yes
B- No

Answer 24

Correct answer NO

These types of establishment are not under control of the State in their management/governance. bodies which are subject to the authority or control of the State or have special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals . (…) a body, whatever its legal form, which has been made responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public service under the control of the State and has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals .

Question 25

5. Please Comment the Following Procedure
   A Portuguese, Civil, First Instance Court (Varas Cíveis de Lisboa) makes a request to the ECJ via Article 267 TFEU
   The request has been made in proceedings between (i) Mr Ferreira da Silva e Brito and 96 other individuals and (ii) the Estado português (Portuguese State) concerning an alleged infringement of EU law which is said to be attributable to the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court of Justice).
   The applicant is suing the Portuguese State in a civil Court due to previous behaviour of the Supreme Court of Justice in a previous case where that applicant had been suing His/her employer.
   The Main issue at Stake NOW is whether a Supreme Court, in case ( within that specific Case), is correct to state that it has no obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ ( even though one of the parties has asked the Supreme court to do this)
   Choose an option and Justify

This Particular case what was the ECJ’s response?
A- That the Portuguese Supreme court was Correct- ECJ declares No breach of Art 267 TFEU, case identical to Kobler case
B- That the Portuguese Supreme Court was wrong -ECJ declares Breach of Art 267 TFEU but offers no excuse that breach was not sufficiently serious to give rise to State liability

Answer 25

Correct Answer: B
Para 45

In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, which are characterized both by the fact that there are conflicting decisions of lower courts or tribunals regarding the interpretation of the concept of a ‘transfer of a business’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23, and by the fact that this concept frequently gives rise to difficulties of interpretation in various Member States, the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be construed as meaning that a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is obliged to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of that concept.

Question 26

6. EU Law on State Liability

EU law requires Member States to make good the damage caused to individuals through failure to transpose directives, provided that three conditions are fulfilled:

Question: Is one of these conditions HORIZONTAL DIRECT EFFECT?

Choose an option and identify the conditions on the basis of case law.

A-yes. On the basis of Cassis de Dijon
B-no On the basis of________________

Answer 26

Correct Answer: B
Cases: Francovich or Dori

EU law mandates that a Member State make good the damage caused to individuals through the failure to transpose a directive, provided that three conditions are fulfilled:

The result prescribed by the directive must entail the grant of rights to individuals.
The content of those rights must be identifiable based on the provisions of the directive.
There must be a causal link between the breach of the State’s obligation and the damage suffered.
In those circumstances, it is the responsibility of the national court to uphold the right of aggrieved persons to obtain reparation in accordance with national law on liability.

Question 27

7. Before the Cassis de Dijon Case

Before the case of Cassis de Dijon was ruled, which were the excuses available to Member States to impede the entry/transit of non-domestic goods (originating in another Member State) into the National Territory?

Choose an option and justify.

Available Excuses for Impeding the Entry/Transit of Non-Domestic Goods:

A) Protection of the Consumer, Fairness of commercial transactions, Effectiveness of Fiscal Supervision, Public Health, Environment

B) Public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic, or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property.

C) Only Protection of the Environment

D) Protection of the Consumer, Fairness of commercial transactions, Effectiveness of Fiscal Supervision, Public Health

Answer 27

Correct Answer: B

Context: Cassis-based excuses only arose in 1978 (paragraph 8 of the ruling), and the environment as such was highlighted in the Danish beer case.

Question 28

8. In the RAU case, if the Member State (Belgium) impeded margarine produced/packed elsewhere from entering Belgium unless it was “Cube-shaped,” and at the same time established the SAME rule for its domestic producers (they also had to pack margarine in a “Cube” shape), how can this be thought to be, in any way, unfair or contrary to EU Law?

A) It’s not unfair. Since it affects both products (domestic and incoming) in the same way. And in Rau, the Member State was allowed to keep the rule in force both for domestic and incoming products.
B) It’s not unfair. Since it affects both products (domestic and incoming) in the same way. And in Rau, the Member State was allowed to keep the rule in force both for domestic and incoming products since it was considered a “selling arrangement” i.e., a method of sale.
C) None of the above

Answer 28

Correct Answer is C

Explanation: Although the requirement that a particular form of packaging must also be used for imported products is not an absolute barrier to the importation into the member state concerned of products originating in other member states, nevertheless it is of such a nature as to render the marketing of those products more difficult or more expensive either by barring them from certain channels of distribution or owing to the additional costs brought about by the necessity to package the products in special packs which comply with the requirements in force on the market of their destination.

Question 29

9. In the Rau Case - Could we state that there is a Dual Burden rule?

A) No, only a selling arrangement.
B) No.
C) Yes, but the rule is distinctly applicable.
D) Yes and the rule is indistinctly applicable.
E) Yes, but not for the reason in C or D.

Answer 29

Correct Answer: D

Explanation: Although the requirement that a particular form of packaging must also be used for imported products is not an absolute barrier to the importation into the member state concerned of products originating in other member states, nevertheless it is of such a nature as to render the marketing of those products more difficult or more expensive, either by barring them from certain channels of distribution or owing to the additional costs brought about by the necessity to package the products in special packs which comply with the requirements in force on the market of their destination.

Question 30

10. Does the expression “reverse discrimination” mean discrimination for the “past”?

A) Yes, and it is connected to an indistinctly applicable rule.
B) Yes, and it places a dual burden on incoming products.
C) No, and it places a burden on domestic products only.
D) Yes, and it places a burden on domestic products only.

Answer 30

Correct Answer: C

Case Law: Drei Glocken “pasta” Reverse discrimination targets only domestic products (single burden). It is a distinctly applicable rule—therefore discriminatory. It amounts to quality signaling. It is risky.

Question 31

11. If Hungary decided to exit the Union and 25 member states agreed, but only one of them, Poland, disagreed, could Poland impede Hungary from exiting?

Yes or No?

Answer 31

No
Article 50 TEU, n2