Human rights

Question 1

GEITLING v HIGH AUTHORITY

Answer 1

Refused to consider German basic law for legality of decision of high authority. Also, “community law… does not contain any general principle, express or otherwise, guaranteeing the maintenance of vested rights.”

Question 2

STORK v HIGH AUTHORITY

Answer 2

No recognition of Human rights.

Question 3

STAUDER v CITY OF ULM

Answer 3

FACTS: Applicant averred that the requirement to reveal one’s name in order to benefit from butter subsidy scheme breached fundamental rights. No breach.
POL: “Nothing capable of prejudicing the fundamental rights enshrined in the GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW and protected by the courts.”
FIRST REFERENCE TO HR AS GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

Question 4

INTERNATIONALE HANDELDQUWDFBE

Answer 4

FACTS: Is EC exports license contrary to fundamental human rights. Again found no infringement or action proportionate (HOWEVER GERMAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DID FIND AN INFRINGEMENT)
POL: Respect for fundamental rights forms an INTEGRAL PART of the general principles of law protected by the Court of Justice. Protection is inspired by constitutional traditions common to MS’s. MUST BE WITHIN FRAMEWORK OF STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES OF COMMUNITY.

Question 5

JOHNSTON V ROYAL ULSTER

Answer 5

ECHR main treaty source to be considered.

Question 6

NOLD v COMMISSION

Answer 6

FACTS: Alleged the Commission decision concerning sale of coal breached ones right to property. Again no infringement.
POL: SOURCES: 1) CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS COMMON TO MSs- Cannot uphold measures incompatible with those rights recognised and protected by constitutions of states. 2) INTERNATIONAL TREATIES FOR PROTECTION OF HRs- Can supply guidelines which should be followed in framework of Community law.

Question 7

R v KENT KIRK

Answer 7

FACTS: EC law stated that Danish vessels not to fish in UK 12 mile one till end of 1982. Lapsed, reimposed by EC reg on 25 Jan 1983. Said gave effect on 1 Jan of that year. Danish national convicted and fined £30,000. Argued SI implemented breached FR.
POL: Could not be imposed retrospectively to establish criminal liability as contrary to ART 7 ECHR.

Question 8

HAUER v LAND RHEILAND PFALZ

Answer 8

FACTS: EC regulation prohibited vine planting. Argued contrary to 1) right of property 2) right to pursue a commercial activity. Reference from German court where they looked at German Basic Law to prove. COJ reframed this with reference to community law instead. No breach. Cited ECHR and indications provided by the constitutional rules and practices of the 9 member states.

Question 9

MW

Answer 9

The highest standard applicable in MSs does not apply.

Question 10

AM and S EUROPE LTD

Answer 10

Need not be shown that relevant norm is to be found in all, or even a majority of the constitutional traditions of the MSs.

Question 11

WACHAUF

Answer 11

FACTS: EU system of milk quotas needs implementation by MS. MSs need to respect Fundamental Rights. Therefore have to provide compensation to tenant farmer who lost quotas when lease expired even though EC regulation did not explicitly provide. (Compensation required in ECHR for right of property.
POL: Must observe HR when acting in scope of EU law

Question 12

NS

Answer 12

FACTS: Asylum seekers. Challenged deportation from UK to Greece on grounds that they would be subject to derogatory treatment. MSs discretion in Dublin Regulation to examine claimants for which not responsible still fell in scope of EU law so had to observe fundamental rights. Could not deport as it could not be unaware of systematic deferences in Greece (HORIZONTAL SOLANGE)

Question 13

CARPENTER

Answer 13

Pushing scope of EU law. Applies EU fundamental rights to issues in national scope.

Question 14

INT FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION

Answer 14

FACTS: Council regulation implementing UN security council resolution freezing assets of suspected terrorists including the 2 in this case. CoJ annulled as infringed: 1) RIGHT TO LEGAL REMEDY (Never informed of legal remedy and therefore could not defend) 2) RIGHT TO PROPERTY (Invalid as could not put their case forward)
POL: RELATIONSHIP WITH SUPREMACY: “… Considered by the expression, in a community based on the rule of law, of a constitutional guarantee stemming from the EC treaty as AN AUTONOMOUS LEGAL SYSTEM WHICH IS NOT BE PREJUDICED BY AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT.”

Question 15

P & SWEDEN v COUNCIL

Answer 15

Historically cautious in relation to socially sensitive matters. Noted the diverse approaches by MSs and did not equate civil partnerships with marriage.

Question 16

COMAN

Answer 16

FACTS: Romanian and US citizens marry (gay) in Brussels where Romanian boyo was resident. Wished to move to Romania- CRD right. Marriage was not recognised in Romania.
POL: Right to be free from discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in respect of free movement upheld regardless of national definitions of marriage.

Question 17

VIKING LINE ABC AND LAVAL

Answer 17

Conflicts between employment rights (including right to collective action) and freedom of establishment/provide services.
POL: Even fundamental social rights are to be subjected to strict scrutiny if the said social rights restrict exercise of economic freedoms.

Question 18

MATTHEWS v UK

Answer 18

Case concerning voting rights in Gibaltrians

Highlights the long held point that states can breach the ECHR when applying laws of the EU.

Question 19

KREMZOW v AUSTRIA

Answer 19

ECHR not binding but noted to have special legal significance in guiding the CJEU.

Question 20

BOSPHORUS

Answer 20

FACTS: Ireland impounded aircraft (leased from Yugoslav airline) further to EC reg implementing UN sanctions against Siberia. Argued breach of ECHR. PRESUMPTION OF NEW BREACH IDENTIFIED IN ECtHR.
POL: In principle contracting states may be liable for acts of international organisations to which they have transferred powers. HOWEVER, if system of Human Rights comparable to that of the organisation, there is a rebuttal presumption of no violation when implemented. For claimant to prove it must be protection that is manifestly deficient.

Question 21

MICHAUD

Answer 21

Presumption only applies when the control mechanisms provide for by EU fully in play.