cases

Costa v. ENEL

• establishes the supremacy of EU law over conflicting national law

• the court ruled that by creating a new legal order, Member States definitively limited their sovereign rights

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft

• EU law takes precedence over all levels of domestic law, including national constitutional law & entrenched fundamental rights

Simmenthal

• a national court must immediately set aside conflicting domestic law on its own authority

• it cannot wait for a higher national court or legislature to repeal it first

Van Gend & Loos

• establishes direct effect

• for a provision to be directly effective, it must be unconditional & sufficiently precise to create an enforceable right

Defrenne v. SABENA

• confirms that Treaty provisions specifically Art. 157 TFEU on equal pay, have horizontal direct effect

  • they can be enforced by an individual against a private party

Publico Ministero v. Ratti

• a directive can only have direct effect after its transportation deadline has expired

• The Estoppel Logic: a state cannot rely on its own failure to pass a law to block an individual’s rights

Marshall v. Southampton Health Authority

• directives never have horizontal direct effect

• they cannot, by themselves, impose obligations on a private individual or corporation

• they can only be enforced vertically against the State or an emanation (bodies treated as an extension of the government) of the State

Foster v. British Gas

• formulates the tripartite test for an ‘emanation of the State’ (to enforce a Directive vertically)

  • provides a public service

  • under the control of the state

  • possesses special ‘extraordinary’ powers beyond normal private rules

CIA Security & Unilever

• the ‘incidental effect’ exception

• a Directive can apply ‘incidentally’ in a private dispute if a party relies on a national rule that the state failed to notify to the Commission in breach of an EU procedural directive

• the national rule is rendered inapplicable

Marleasing

• establishes Indirect Effect (the doctrine of consistent internpretation)

• national courts must interpret domestic law ‘as far as possible’ in light of the wording & purpose of an EU directive

Adeneler

• the duty of a national court to interpret domestic law in conformity with a Directive arises only after the transportation deadline of that Directive has expired

Inter-Environnement Wallonie (IEW)

• during the transposition period (before the deadline), Member States must completely refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to comprise the result prescribed by the Directive

Mangold & Kücükdeveci

• a national court must set aside domestic law that conflicts with a General Principle of EU law (eg non-discrimination) even before the transposition period of a Directive giving expression to that principle has expired

Francovich

• establishes the principle of State Liability

• foundation: Article 4(3) TEU (loyal cooperation) & the principle of effet util

• Member States must compensate individuals for harms caused by breaches of EU law or failure to implement an EU Directive

Brasserie du Pêcheur / Factortame III

• expands State Liability to any breach of EU law by a Member State

• establishes the 3 cumulative conditions for damages

1. the rule breached must be intended to confer (grant) rights on individuals

2. the breach must be sufficiently serious

3. there must be a direct causal link between the breach and the damage

Dillenkofer

• synthesises (combos) Francovich & Brasserie

• a complete, blank failure to transpose a Directive within the prescribed deadline automatically & unconditionally constitutes a ‘sufficiently serious breach’

Köbler

• State liability can be triggered by a breach of EU law committed by a national court of last instance (supreme court), but only in exceptional cases where the court manifestly ignored prevailing EU law or CJEU case law

Plaumann v. Commission

• the definitive, ultra-strict test for ‘individual concern’ under Article 263(4) TFEU

• an applicant is individually concerned if the measure affects them by reasons of attributes peculiar to them or by circumstances differentiating them from all other persons (a closed category)

• economic loss alone does not suffice

Inuit

• defines ‘regulatory act’ under the 3rd limb of Article 263(4) TFEU

• it means all acts of general application EXCEPT legislative acts (acts passed via ordinary / special legislative procedures)

• if an act is legislative, the applicant must prove Plaumann individual concern

Dorsch Consult

• lists the cumulative criteria to determine if a body is a ‘court or tribunal’ under Article 267 TFEU

  • established by law

  • permanent

  • compulsory jurisdiction

  • adversarial procedure (flexible)

  • applies rules of law

  • is independent

Broekmeulen

• a private professional or appeals committee (eg a medical registration board) qualifies as a ‘court or tribunal’ if:

  • it operates with official public involvement

  • it acts under statutory authority, and

  • its decisions are final & legally binding

Foglia v. Novello

• the CJEU will declare a preliminary reference inadmissible if it discovers that the case is a fictitious or engineered lawsuit manufactured by the parties solely to get an abstract legal ruling

Foto-Frost

• lower national courts have the discretion to interpret EU law, but they have no power to declare an EU measure void

CILFIT

• Case 283/81

• defines 3 exceptions where a court of last instance is exempt from its strict duty to refer a question to the CJEU

  • the question is structurally irrelevant to the case outcome

  • the point is an acte eclaire: the CJEU has already decided the exact or a materially identical point

  • the point is an acte clair: the correct application is so obvious it leaves no room for reasonable doubt across all language versions

Geddo

• defines a Quantitative Restriction (QR) as any measure which amounts to a total or partial restraint of imports, exports, or goods in transit (eg outright bans, quotas)

Dassonville

• defines a Measure Having Equivalent Effect (MEQR): ‘all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade’

Cassis de Dijon

• introduces 2 critical doctrines for indistinctly applicable measures

1. mutual recognition: a product lawfully produced & marketed in one Member State must be generally admitted to all others

2. mandatory requirements: trade barriers are allowed if necessary to satisfy overriding public interest (fiscal supervision, public health, consumer protection)

Keck and Mithouard

• draws a hard line between

  • product rules: design, size, composition → always caught by Article 34

  • selling arrangements: when, where, how items are sold / advertised → not caught by article 34, provided they apply to all traders in law & fact equally

Commission v. Italy (Trailers) / Mickelsson & Roos

• refines Keck

• introduces the comprehensive ‘market access test’

• any national rule that prevents or greatly restricts the use of a product, effectively preventing its access to the domestic market, falls under Article 34 TFEU (even if it’s a selling arrangement or a use tool)

Levin / Kempf

• defines a worker under Article 45 TFEU

• the work must be genuine & effective, not purely nominal or minimal

• part-time work or work where the person earns less than subsistence level (& needs private / public top-ups) still qualifies

Antonissen

• first-time job seekers have a right to move & reside in another member state to look for work

• they can’t be deported if they provide clear evidence that they are continuing to seek work & have a genuine chance of being engaged

Angonese

• Article 45 TFEU (free movement of workers) has horizontal direct effect

• it applies directly to private employers (eg a private bank or private sports cub), prohibiting them from imposing discriminatory nationality quotas

Gebhard

• governs freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU)

• it sets out the 4-prong test for when a national restriction on a fundamental market freedom is legally permissible

1. it must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner

2. it must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest

3. it must be suitable for securing the objective

4. it must not go beyond what is necessary (proportionate)

Grzelczyk

• declares that union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, enabling those who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality

Kraaijeveld / Commission v. Ireland (EIA Context)

• Member States’ discretion under Annex II of the EIA Directive to set thresholds is not absolute

• if a state sets thresholds so high that whole classes of projects with significant impacts escape assessment entirely, it exceeds its limits

Wells (EIA Context)

• an individual can rely directly on the procedural rules of the EIA Directive against a sate entity to halt / review a project that was granted development consent without a mandatory environmental assessment

Bund Naturschutz (Trianel)

• under the EIA Directive’s access to justice provisions, environmental NGOs must be given standing to challenge decisions before national courts

• they can rely on EU environmental rules that protect the environment as such, rather than having to prove a violation of their own individual private rights

Waddenzee

• interprets Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive

• national authorities can only grant development consent to a project if they are completely certain (no reasonable scientific doubt remains) that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

ClientEarth (Air Quality Context)

• the air quality Directive (2008/50/EC) imposes an obligation of result regarding limit values

• if a Member State exceeds pollution limits, the mere fact that it has established an air quality plan does not mean it has fulfilled its treaty obligations

• individuals can compel national courts to order the state to take effective corrective action