Law of the European Union Final Caselaw Notes (Y2B1 RUG LLB)

Titanium Dioxide case

How to identify the legal basis?

Look at “objective factors amenable to judicial review”, in particular “aim and content of the measure”

Cassis de Dijon case

If a product is lawfully produced and marketed in one MS, it should also be allowed in other MS. Nondiscriminatory obstacles can be justified based on treaty derogations (art 36) and also mandatory requirements (consumer protection, public health, fair trading).

Van Gend & Loos case

Only the Union can determine the meaning and effect of EU law

• Doctrine of direct effect: Established that certain provisions of EU law are directly effective if they are clear, precise, and unconditional

Costa v ENEL case

EU law takes precedence over national laws

• If there is a conflict between EU law and national law, EU law must prevail, and national laws that are inconsistent with EU laws must be set aside.

Simmenthal II case

National courts must apply EU law directly and set aside any conflicting national laws.

• National courts do not need to await the annulment of conflicting national provisions by national authorities, they must apply EU law immediately and fully.

Van Duyn case

Directives can have (vertical) direct effect if they are sufficiently clear and unconditional. Which means Article 45 TFEU has direct effect

Leonesio case

Regulations have vertical direct effect if clear and unconditional

Grad case

Decisions also have direct effect if clear and unconditional

Marshall

Directives only have vertical direct effect if:

1. MS has not or wrongly transposed the provisions of the directive

2. After the transposition deadline has passed

3. Provisions sufficiently clear and unconditional

No horizontal direct effect

• Use Marshall to rely on directive instead of national law

Kolpinghuis case

Directives cannot have inverse direct effect as the state cannot benefit from the it’s own failure to implement the directive. Also directives cannot be used to determine liability since they do not impose obligations on individuals

• National courts must interpret national law as much as possible in conformity with the directive.

Faccini Dori case

No horizontal direct effect for directives

Indirect effect of directives: National courts must interpret and apply national law in a manner consistent with the directive’s objectives.

Adeneler case

For indirect effect to apply 4 conditions must be fulfilled:

1. Implementation deadline must have passed

2. Interpretative method must be recognized by national law

3. Interpretation must comply with general principals

4. No contra legem interpretation

Brassirie case

State liability:

3 cumulative criteria:

1. Sufficiently serious breach of EU law by Member State

2. Breached provision of EU law aims to grant rights to individuals

3. Causal link between breach and damage (economic loss)

Dansk Industri case

Some charter provisions confer an individual right which may be invoked before a national court in both vertical and horizontal disputes even though directives don’t have horizontal direct effect. How? In order to resolve the conflict between national and EU Law:

1. Can the national court interpret domestic law consistently with the directive?

2. Does the relevant Charter provision or general principle confer a right that can be invoked in this dispute?

Walrave case

Horizontal direct effect of Article 56 TFEU

Tobacco Advertising I

A measure adopted on the legal basis of Article 114 TFEU must genuinely have its object the improvement of the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market.

Statistical Levy case

No minimum threshold for the prohibition on customs duties (Article 30 TFEU)

Humblot case

Prohibition of indirect discrimination (Article 110 TFEU)

Outokumpu case

Prohibition of direct discrimination

Commission v United Kingdom

Prohibition of protective taxation: Taxation favorable to domestic products rather than foreign ones, can be competing products which are not similar.

Dassonville case

Defines MEEs

Krantz

Not all national measures that effect the flow of goods are measures having MEEs since sometimes the effect on trade is “too uncertain and indirect”

Keck case

Keck exception: Some product requirements are not MEEs if they apply to all traders and do not discriminate against foreign products in law or in fact.

Familiapress case

Distinction between product requirements and certain selling arrangement

Gourmet International case

Discriminatory rules regarding selling arrangements are still MEEs

Italian Trailers case

Bans/restrictions on use can affect “market access”, because consumers will not be interested in buying the product.

Lawrie-Blum case

Criteria for a “worker”:

1. A person performing a service under the direction of another person

2. For a specific period of time

3. In exchange for remuneration

Saunders case

Wholly internal situations are not covered by Article 45 TFEU

Cristini case

Wide interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation 492/2011

Bosman case

1. Article 45 can also be invoked against private entities who are exercising their “legal autonomy”

2. Transfer sum rule: Prohibition of non-discriminatory obstacles to the free movement of workers

3. Possible justification: Financial and competitive balance between football clubs

Adoui and Cornuaille case

No treaty derogations in Article 45(3) TFEU for arbitrary discrimination.

Angonese case

Article 45(2) TFEU has direct horizontal effect as it concerns indirect discrimination