General Principles

Question 1

Secretary of State for Health ex parte British American Tobacco

Answer 1

“legality of measure adopted can only be affected if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue”

Question 2

Solange I

Answer 2

German courts will only follow EU law so long as it respects fundamental rights

Question 3

Costa v Enel

Answer 3

Supremacy of EU law - body of law created which binds member states.

Question 4

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft

Answer 4

EU law is supreme even to national constitutional courts.

Question 5

Simmenthal

Answer 5

EU law is supreme over prior existing national law and subsequent conflicting national law.

Question 6

Factortame

Answer 6

National law precluding certain remedies may have to be set aside in order to give effect to EU law.

Question 7

Honeywell

Answer 7

Primacy of application of EU law exists because the EU would not otherwise be able to exist as a legal community.

Question 8

Thuburn

Answer 8

Constitutional statutes may not be subject to implied repeal - ECA would count.

Question 9

Van Gend en Loos

Answer 9

Direct effect - EU law is intended to give individuals rights.

Question 10

Van Duyn

Answer 10

Article guaranteeing freedom of movement for workers held to be directly effective, it lay down unconditional obligations.

Question 11

Reyners v Belgium

Answer 11

Broad right of non-discrimination was capable of direct effect even in the absence of implementing legislation.

Question 12

Defrenne v SABENA

Answer 12

Case concerned equal pay legislation, broad non-specific right was directly effective even though it concerned horizontal relations.

Question 13

Commission v Italy

Answer 13

“Regulations operate to confer rights on individuals which the national courts have a duty to protect”

Question 14

Franz Grad

Answer 14

Article 288 does not preclude direct effect for decisions by not specifying that they should have direct effect.

Question 15

Tullio Ratti

Answer 15

A member state which has not adopted the implementing measures required within the prescribed time period cannot rely upon their failure to implement as against individuals.

Question 16

Marshall v Southampton

Answer 16

A directive may not itself impose obligations on an individual, no horizontal direct effect.

Question 17

Mangold

Answer 17

Age discrimination directive couldn’t be relied upon against another individual.

Question 18

Foster v British Gas

Answer 18

Broad concept of state - body providing a public service,which has special powers for that purpose.

Question 19

Von Colson

Answer 19

Court is bound to interpret national legislation in the light of EU legislation, indirect effect.

Question 20

Marleasing

Answer 20

Indirect effect applies as far as possible, but cant apply where there is direct conflict.

Question 21

Centrosteel

Answer 21

Use of indirect effect.

Question 22

CIA Security

Answer 22

Incidental effect - Belgian government failed to notify a technical specification in breach of EU law, CIA security could evoke EU law to assert that the other party should not allege it was in breach of the Belgian law.

Question 23

Francovich

Answer 23

Member States are obliged to make good loss and damage caused by breaches of Community law for which they can be held responsible.

Question 24

Brasserie du Pecheur

Answer 24

Three conditions where a right to reparation of loss or damage is guaranteed: The rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals, the breach must be sufficiently serious, there must be a direct causal link.

Question 25

Dillenkofer

Answer 25

Where a Member State doesn’t implement directive within prescribed period, it constitutes a manifest and grave breach of EU law.

Question 26

British Telecom

Answer 26

Partial failure to implement, an imprecise directive had not been given guidance, court recognised partial failure to implement may not always give rise to state liability.

Question 27

Kobler

Answer 27

National court breached obligation to refer to CJEU, could give rise to state liability, wasn’t sufficiently serious in this case.