WS 1

Question 1

Roquette Frères v Council (1980)

Answer 1

• The ECJ annulled a Regulation adopted under the consultation procedure as the Council did not consult Parliament adequately.
• Shows how ECJ can review the legality of EU institutions

Question 2

Dorsch Consult (1997)

Answer 2

To decide whether or not a body was a ‘court or tribunal’ the ECJ listed these relevant factors:

• Whether established by law
• Whether body is permanent
• Whether it has compulsory jurisdiction
• Whether its procedure is inter partes (hearing for both sides)
• Applies rules of law
• Whether it is independent

Question 3

Syfait (2005)

Answer 3

• Question over whether the Greek Competition Commission (GCC) could refer a Q to the ECJ
• Despite AG wishing to allow it, to ensure uniformity of law, ECJ ruled that it was not independent
• Lack of independence due to link to government and potential for gov. pressure

ALSO NOTE

• Close links between investigator and committee in question was an issue
• Applying rule of law issue raised by AG: only 3/7 members legally qualified

Question 4

Broekmeulen [1981]

Answer 4

Where a body is of mandatory jurisdiction, more likely to be deemed a ‘court or tribunal’ as there is no right of appeal

Question 5

Nordsee [1982]

Answer 5

• ECJ ruled that an arbitrator was not a ‘court or tribunal’
• Due to voluntary nature of the arbitrators involvement

Question 6

CILFIT [1982]

Answer 6

• ECJ outlined criteria for a ‘necessary’ question to ECJ
• Must be relevant to the conclusion of the case
• Must not have already been dealt with by the ECJ
• Must be some degree of reasonable doubt over the application/acte clair

Question 7

Da Costa en Schaake NV (1963)

Answer 7

• A court or tribunal may still submit a Q to the ECJ which has been ruled on
• But only if there is still some ambiguity or it thinks the ECJ may change its mind
• This is to promote clarity and uniformity

Question 8

Costa v ENEL [1964]

Answer 8

• no judicial remedy under national law = mandatory jurisdiction
• and example that ECJ cannot interpret national law

Question 9

R v International Stock Exchange

Answer 9

Lord Bingham encouraged national courts to refer to the ECJ as it is better equipped to deal with questions of EU law

Question 10

Trinity Mirror [2001]

Answer 10

• Court of Appeal suggested that national courts should show self-restraint in referrals to the ECJ so it is not overwhelmed.
• Reference most appropriate when the question is one of general importance and to promote uniformity.

Question 11

Köbler v Austria

Answer 11

• Ruled that an individual can sue the state for an incorrect failure to make an Article 267 TFEU reference
• Although, in practice, this is unlikely to be successful

Question 12

Rheinmülen [1974]

Answer 12

• Courts are not bound by higher national courts in their discretion to refer
• Court of Appeal could refer an issue that the Supreme Court chose not to

Question 13

Foglia v Novello [1981]

Answer 13

ECJ ruled that a court cannot make a reference in absence of a genuine dispute

Question 14

Telemarsicabruzzo [1993]

Answer 14

ECJ refused to make a reference as insufficient factual information was given