European Union Law: Case studies

Published: 2020-07-15 11:05:04
3751 words
14 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Law

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

Title: European Union Law: Answer all three inquiries every bit within the word count of 3000
1. Manuel, a Spaniard, is a recent alumnus of the University of Barcelona, holding gained a grade in Leisure and Tourism. Manuel wishes to set about station alumnus research on English association football vandalism and he has applied for a figure of occupations in England to assist back up him while he is set abouting his research. He receives an offer of a occupation with Torquay Borough Council as a parttime server with the Leisure Services Department. Manuel is delighted by this occupation offer but is defeated when UK in-migration functionaries inform him that he will be unable to come in and take up this place because a proviso of UK local authorities jurisprudence requires that stations in local authorities be filled merely by British subjects. Furthermore they inform him that since it merely involves six hours ‘ work at a rate of wage good below subsistence degree it would non measure up him for any rights under EC jurisprudence. Manuel besides wished to convey with him his Irish girlfriend Polly who wished to look for work besides in the catering industry. Polly has been refused entry into the UK. Cybil, an unemployed waitress from Torquay, was late made redundant. Disenchanted with the English conditions, she decides that she wants to travel to populate in Barcelona. Cybil arrives in Spain with her aged, retired hubby Basil. At the airdrome Spanish in-migration functionaries tell Cybil that, under a proviso of Spanish in-migration jurisprudence, her hubby will hold to return to England instantly because he has no work to travel to. Cybil herself is refused entry because she has a strong belief in England from 1984 for domestic force. Rede all parties of their rights under Article 39 and its secondary statute law.
2. The constructs of direct consequence, indirect consequence and province liability are no more than a originative effort on the portion of the European Court of Justice to guarantee that the aims of the Treaty are non defeated by the diction of Article 249. ” Discuss the truth of the above statement.
3. The Italian authorities have late introduced statute law following a research paper in a Gallic diary which, while uncorroborated, concludes that English domestic fowl is hazardously infected with Newcastle disease ” . Acting on this the Italian statute law proposes: a ) A prohibition on the importation of all unrecorded poulets from the UK. B ) The imposing of proving of all domestic fowl for Newcastle disease regardless of beginning. degree Celsius ) The debut of a system of licencing for all retail mercantile establishments selling imported domestic fowl or domestic fowl merchandises for ingestion. vitamin D ) Criminal countenances for all distributers of both domestic and imported domestic fowl that sell septic domestic fowl or domestic fowl merchandises. Discourse the legitimacy of the Italian statute law within EU Law
Q.1.The Treaty of Rome 1957 ( afterlife ‘the EC Treaty’ ) , as amended, provides for the free motion of workers around the Union. This freedom is an indispensable constituent of the EU Single Market. Article 39 [ 1 ] provinces that:
1. Freedom of motion for workers shall be secured within the Community.
2. Such freedom of motion shall imply the abolishment of any favoritism based on nationality between workers of the Member States as respects employment, wage and other conditions of work and employment.
3. It shall imply the right, capable to restrictions justified on evidences of public policy, public security or public wellness:
( a ) to accept offers of employment really made ;
( B ) to travel freely within the district of Member States for this intent ;
( degree Celsius ) to remain in a Member State for the intent of employment in conformity with the commissariats regulating the employment of subjects of that State laid down by jurisprudence, ordinance or administrative action ;
( vitamin D ) to stay in the district of a Member State after holding been employed in that State, capable to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing ordinances to be drawn up by the Commission.
4. The commissariats of this Article shall non use to employment in the public service.” [ 2 ]
Presumably at strivings to avoid unnaturally curtailing the range of the construct, the Treaty does non specify the word ‘worker’ . However, the European Court of Justice has interpreted Article 39 loosely in a figure of instances. InLawrie-Blum V Land Baden-Wi??rttemberg[ 3 ] the indispensable feature of a worker was found to be the public presentation of services for and under the way of another in return for wage during a certain period of clip. It should be noted that the construct of worker is the sphere of EU jurisprudence. It may non be determined by disparate national Torahs of the member provinces:Levin V Staatsecretaris new wave Justitie. [ 4 ]
For the interest of lucidity and simpleness it is proposed to rede each of the parties on the above jurisprudence separately.
Manuel has received an offer of a occupation with Torquay Borough Council as a parttime server with the Leisure Services Department. This scenario concerns precisely the sort of cross-border worker mobility protected under the EU government. Regulation 1612/68 provides that EC subjects are guaranteed the right to prosecute and take up employment in the district of another member province under exactly the same conditions as subjects of that province. [ 5 ]
That said, Article 39 ( 4 ) [ 6 ] of the EC Treaty allows member provinces to decline or otherwise restrict entree to workers employed in the public service on the land of their nationality. This appears to use to Manuel’s instance, because he has been offered a occupation with a Borough Council. It is submitted, nevertheless, that this disparagement has, as with most Treaty disparagements from cardinal rules, been narrowly interpreted by the European Court.
InSotgiu V Deutsche Bundespost[ 7 ] there was a claim that station office regulations offering allowances to workers discriminated against non-nationals. It was held that Article 39 ( 4 ) applies merely toentreeto employment and that it does non use toallemployment in the public service. Rather, merely those activities connected with the exercising of official authorization are permitted to be excluded on this land. [ 8 ] Given the likely occupation specification of Manuel’s place as parttime server in the Leisure Services Department, it seems most improbable that his occupation would fall into the class that is protected by the Article 39 ( 4 ) disparagement.
Furthermore, inCommission v Belgium ( re Public Employees )[ 9 ] a Belgian ordinance reserving stations for domestic subjects ( including pipe fitters nurses and designers employed in cardinal and local authorities ) was found to conflict Article 39. The tribunal stressed that the exclusion was intended to cover merely the exercising of public authorization in order to safeguard the general involvements of the province. Junior degree stations were deemed non to be covered by the disparagement. [ 10 ]
It is hard to gestate of a more junior and less influential place than parttime server. Therefore it is submitted that the United Kingdom can non except Manuel from taking up his intended station on the footing of the public policy disparagement.
As for the United Kingdom’s concern that Manuel’s occupation offers merely involves six hours ‘ work at a rate of wage good below subsistence degree, it is submitted that it is erroneous to reason that this would non measure up him for any rights under EC jurisprudence. InLevin V Staatsecretaris new wave Justitie[ 11 ] it was confirmed that the termworkerincluded parttime workers provided the work involved was echt work of an economic nature and non strictly nominal.Kempf V Staatsecretaris new wave Justitie[ 12 ] andSteymann V Staatsecretaris new wave Justitie[ 13 ] both reinforce the point that really minimum economic activity will trip the rights available under Article 39.
Manuel’s occupation offer hence likely can non be excluded by the public policy disparagement or on evidences that the economic activity involved is non significant plenty to measure up for protection. He is therefore likely to be lawfully entitled to come in the United Kingdom to take up the station he has secured.
Polly is Manuel’s girlfriend and besides, being Irish, a citizen of the EU in her ain right.
Directing 68/360 has been found by the European Court to cover the right to come in a member province other than your ain in hunt of work. The instanceProcureur du Roi V Royer[ 14 ] confirms that Polly is entitled to come in the United Kingdom to seek out work in the catering industry, and likely this right will exist for a minimal period of six months:R V Immigration Appeal Tribunal ( ex parte Antonissen ). [ 15 ] This should give Polly sufficient clip to acquire established in work or determine other legal rights to back up her abode.
Cybil is likewise entitled to raise Directive 68/360 to let her to come in Spain to seek for work. In visible radiation of her recent redundancy it is assumed that Cybil is of an age to prosecute echt employment chances, and it is assumed she will seek to raise Article 39 protection to that terminal.
Her 1984 strong belief for domestic force can non, it is submitted, be cited to barricade Cybil’s entry into Spain on the Article 39 ( 3 ) populace policy disparagement. Previous condemnable strong beliefs do non supply the evidences for exclusion in this context unless they demonstrate grounds of a present and important menace to public policy:R V Bouchereau.[ 16 ]
A 21 twelvemonth old strong belief for domestic force is far from go throughing that threshold of significance. Cybil can non be assumed to represent a present menace to the demands of public policy and given the clip that has elapsed since strong belief there is no grounds of a likeliness of a return of socially harmful behavior. [ 17 ] Spain can non, it is submitted, barricade her entry on these evidences.
As Cybil’s partner, Basil is entitled to come in Spain and attach to her on her hunt for work. His rights are protected,inter alia, by Article 10 ( 1 ) and 10 ( 2 ) of Regulation 1612/68, the latter of which provides that member provinces must ease the admittance of household members when a worker is seeking to raise freedom to work rights. [ 18 ]
Q.2.Article 249 EC provides that:
….A ordinance shall hold general application. It shall be adhering in its entireness and straight applicable in all Member States.
A directing shall be adhering, as to the consequence to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall go forth to the national governments the pick of signifier and methods.” [ 19 ]
The indispensable job lies with the definition of theDirective. Directives are unlike ordinances in that they do non make legal rights and duties when they enter into force. They rely on execution at a national degree before confabulating enforceable jurisprudence via the permuting domestic statute law. Often in the history of the European Union member provinces have either failed to permute Directives, or failed to implement them accurately, or been late with their execution. [ 20 ]
In these fortunes a hard state of affairs arises. InMarshall v. Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority[ 21 ] it became clear that employees enjoy different rights depending on the position of their employer. Public employees can raise perpendicular direct consequence to implement rights in an improperly implemented directive against the province, which as their employer, has failed in its responsibility to permute the directing accurately. However, employees of a private project can merely try to raise direct consequencehorizontallyagainst their employer. InMarshallthe tribunal refused to back the efficaciousness of horizontal direct consequence, go forthing employees of private projects with no right of action.
It is utile to compare VonColson[ 22 ] andHarz.[ 23 ] Both instances concerned Article 6 of the Equal Treatment Directive ( 76/ 207 ) . However,Von Colsonconcerned a populace andHarza private employer, and hence a redress was available in theVon Colsoninstance but non inHarz. Alternatively of foregrounding the unjust consequences of the deficiency of horizontal direct effects of Directives, the ECJ focused on articles 10 and 249 ( ex 5 and 109 ) EC which oblige member provinces to conform to community duties. On giving birth to the construct ofindirect direct consequence, the tribunal found that this demand applies to all member provinces governments, including in peculiar thetribunals, who were ordered to construe and use statute law adopted to implement a directivein the visible radiation of the diction and intent of the directivein order to accomplish the aim of the Directive.
TheMarleasing[ 24 ] determination developed the rule of indirect consequence by corroborating that an duty exists to construe national jurisprudence to follow with a directive, irrespective of whether the national jurisprudence in inquiry came into force prior to or after the directive.
When domestic jurisprudence can non be creatively interpreted in such a manner as to give the plaintiff an effectual redress another option is now available. The person is now sceptered pursue the alternate redress of a claim in amendss against the province.
As a effect of certain proactive determinations by the European Court, amendss may be awarded as a redress in instances where the member province fails to implement a directive. [ 25 ] In these fortunes the liability of the member province remainders on the non-implementation of a directing and breach of its EU duties. The member province is therefore compelled to rectify the harm done to the person by the breach. The province liability philosophy was foremost applied in the outstanding instanceFrancovich. [ 26 ] InFrancovichthe relevant Directive was incapable of prolonging direct consequence, but the overarching end of the effectual and unvarying execution of Community jurisprudence was found to warrant liability on the portion of the member province to counterbalance for its failure to implement the directive. The European Court established a trial to find whether member provinces should be obliged to counterbalance persons for breach of improperly transposed EU jurisprudence. It was held ( 1 ) that the aim of the directing must include the conferring of single rights, ( 2 ) that the content and range of those rights must be clearly identifiable from the text of the Directive, and ( 3 ) that there must be a insouciant nexus between the breach and the harm caused.
The range of the allegedFrancovichrule of province liability has been extended by more recent instances. InBrasserie du Pi??cheurandFactortame III,[ 27 ] the European Court amplified its ain law, happening province liability in amendss in the context of claims for loss suffered as a consequence of statute law adopted in dispute of straight effectual Treaty commissariats.
As a effect of the foregoing determinations, for province liability to originate the breach in inquiry must besufficiently serious( instead manifest and grave ) :Bayerische HNL GmbH.[ 28 ] To day of the month it has proved rather hard, in pattern, to run into this status before the national tribunals. [ 29 ]
In shutting, it is submitted that the European Court’s response to the jobs built-in in the infirmities of directives and spreads in the direct consequence rule amply demonstrates its resoluteness to heighten and safeguard theeffet utileof European Union jurisprudence. [ 30 ] As a effect of the European Court’s resolved attack to the undertaking of implanting and honing Community jurisprudence, EU citizens now have a assortment of agencies of obtaining the protection of the jurisprudence derived from the model established by the Treaty of Rome.
Q.3.Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty prohibit Member States from keeping or enforcing barriers to intra-Community trade, unless a disparagement is found to be applicable. Article 28 ( antique Article 30 ) provides:
‘Quantitative limitations on imports and all steps holding tantamount consequence shall be prohibited between Member States’
Article 30( antique Article 36 ) adds the caution that disparagements are available:
‘The commissariats of Articles 28 and 29 shall non prevent prohibitions or limitations on imports, exports or goods in theodolite justified on evidences of public morality, public policy or public security ; the protection of wellness and life of worlds, animate beings or workss ; the protection of national hoarded wealths possessing artistic, historic or archeological value ; or the protection of industrial and commercial belongings. Such prohibitions or limitations shall non, nevertheless, constitute a agency of arbitrary favoritism or a cloaked limitation on trade between Member States.’
The prohibition proposed by the Italian Government on English domestic fowl is capable to this model of jurisprudence. The get downing point for intra-EU trade is that it should non be fettered in any manner. It is submitted that the lone manner for the Italian Government to compass this cardinal right and pillar of the Single Market is to claim, presumptively on the Article 30 land of theprotection of wellness and life of worlds, animate beings or workss,that a disparagement is justified in visible radiation of the wellness concerns associating to English domestic fowl.
It is deserving observing at an early phase that the disparagements in Article 30 exempt a founding rule of the European Union’s much cherished and jealously guarded internal market and as such they are parsimoniously and restrictively applied. In general footings it is hence necessary to progress a compelling statement if one is to convert the European Court that intra-EU trade has been justifiably restricted. [ 31 ]
Import prohibitions are notoriously difficult to warrant under Article 30 because they normally constitute an unnecessarily Draconian measure and are normally unneeded to protect wellness given the alternate safeguards available:Commission v Germany ( Meat Preparations ) .[ 32 ] It is noted that the research paper in the Gallic Journal which has been cited as justification by the Italians isuncorroborated.It is dubious that this grounds would do to convert the European Court that the Italian Government’s response was in conformance with Article 28 duties.
In order to warrant an Article 30 freedom it is necessary to show a existent and touchable hazard to wellness. Slight, tentative or theoretical hazards will non do. InCommission V United Kingdom ( Gallic Turkeys )[ 33 ] a licensing system was established by the UK governments to except domestic fowl from states following a policy of inoculation in penchant to one of slaughter ( besides ) in response to Newcastle disease. The European Court resolved that such a prohibition was indefensible on evidences of carnal wellness. The Court speculated that the prohibition was no more than a thinly cloaked limitation on intra-EU trade.
Further and better specifics are sought on the affair of the prohibition and the nature of the disease and its taint of the United Kingdom poulet flock. However, on the facts presented it seems improbable the Italian prohibition would be deemed lawful at the European Court of Justice.
The proposal to prove domestic fowl for Newcastle diseaseregardless of beginningis more likely to be considered in conformance with EU jurisprudence. The proving system is more likely to be deemed acceptable if Italy can show that there is no intrinsic or indirect favoritism against foreign goods. Inspections are typically allowable in the fortunes described, but they are merely likely to be justified if they are found to be moderately proportionate to the purpose pursued. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated by the Italian Government that the same end can non be achieved by less restrictive agencies. InCommission v France ( Re Italian Table Wines )[ 34 ] the European Court found that drawn-out holds in imposts clearance of vino imported from Italy into France were disproportional and therefore discriminatory. Purportedlyrandomcheques were imposed on 75 per cent of cargos, but this degree of surveillance was deemedsystematicand therefore disallowed.
The proposed debut of a system of licencing for all retail mercantile establishments selling imported domestic fowl or domestic fowl merchandises for ingestion is nevertheless destined to neglect. Licensingper Seis an wholly commendable exercising and can be defended on evidences of public wellness for a assortment of telling grounds. However, the cardinal word in the proposal isimported. A new system of licencing mercantile establishments that deal in imported domestic fowl has an evidently and straight prejudiced consequence which would necessarily function to promote domestic retail mercantile establishments to sell merely Italian-reared domestic fowl instead than capable themselves to the loads of extra licensing.
It is contended that any system which purported to separate between domestic and extra-EU merchandises by these agencies and in this context would be treated as blazing protectionism by the European Court.
The proposal to set up condemnable countenances for all distributers of both domestic and imported domestic fowl that sell septic domestic fowl or domestic fowl merchandises would look to be an unneeded, disproportional and Draconian response. Despite the fact that the step would use every bit to Italian and EU domestic fowl, there is a hazard that such action could represent an indirect hindrance to the flux of Community trade and an indistinct hindrance on domestic fowl importing from any member province known or suspected to endure from Newcastle disease infection, irrespective of the degree, range or form of that infection.
Harmonizing to the celebratedDassonville[ 35 ] expression:
‘All trade steps or trading regulations enacted by the Member States which are capable of impeding, straight or indirectly, really or potentially, into community trade as steps holding and consequence equivalent to quantitative restrictions.’
Therefore it is non necessary to show that the Italian proposal on condemnable countenances really hinders trade between member provinces, every bit long as it is possible to demo that the step iscapableof such effects.
WORD COUNT: 3668 ( excepting footnotes – I overran to take history of the fact that the drawn-out inquiry is counted in the computerised word count )
The Treaty of Rome
The Treaty of Amsterdam
European Commission Notices ( assorted )
Official Journal ( assorted )
Business Law in the European Union, C.Bovis, Sweet & A ; Maxwell
EC Law, Weatherill and Beaumont, Penguin Books
Introduction to European Union Law, Cairns, Cavendish
EU Law – Text, Cases and Materials, Craig and De Burca, Oxford University Press
Conflicting EC Law: The Liability of the Member State, Spink P. ,Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly
Textbook on EC Law, Steiner and Woods, Blackstone
Law of the European Community, Fairhurst and Vincenzi, Pearson Education
EC Law, Foster, Blackstone
Basic Community Cases, Rudden and Phelan, Oxford University Press
Law of the European Union, Kent, P. , Longman
Text, Cases and Materials on European Union Law, Tillotson and Foster, Cavendish
EU Law Legislative acts, Sweet and Maxwell
Cases and Materials on EC Law, Weatherill, Oxford University Press
Europa: Gateway to the European Union:hypertext transfer protocol: //

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!


We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read