eu law essay help

Notes, cases, and materials on EU law

Topic notes.

Past Papers

Back to Subjects | Back to Law

Introduction to EU law

Legal nature and competence

Institutions of the EU

Sources of EU law

Principle of supremacy

Preliminary rulings

Direct action

Review of legality

Remedies in national courts

State liability

Overview of the internal market

Past Papers & Questions

1. “Tucked away in the fairyland Duchy of Luxembourg and blessed, until recently, with benign neglect by the powers that be and the mass media, the Court of Justice of the European Communities has fashioned a constitutional framework for a federal-type structure in Europe.” Eric Stein, Lawyers, Judges and the making of a Transnational Constitution [1981] 75 American Journal of International Law 1.

Critically discuss whether the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as Stein suggests, in ‘finding’ the relevant EU principles, rights and obligations promoted an integrationist agenda by stealth or has it, more haphazardly, simply made up the operational doctrines as it went along?

2. “Every year a new cohort of law students is inducted into the central articles of faith on the effectiveness of EU law. On the one hand, these concern the forms of action: direct actions (Articles 258 and 259 TFEU); judicial review (Article 263 TFEU); preliminary references (Article 267 TFEU); and actions for non-contractual liability (Article 340 TFEU). On the other hand, these also concern the effects of EU law: direct effect and supremacy; the effects of directives; and state liability. EU law seminarians are soon apprised of the CJEU’s duty to ensure the uniform application of EU law and the national courts’ duty of ‘sincere cooperation’. [...] Yet, for the EU law seminarian, the main focus bears on Article 267 TFEU and state liability. Necessarily, this fixation, given the ad hoc nature of litigation and the variation in national remedies, further compromises the overall coherence of EU law.”

Critically reflect on the extent to which EU law provides for a cogent, complete and compelling system of enforcement.

3. “The free movement of capital is still the least developed European Union internal market freedom”.

Critically discuss the above statement by tracing the development of the EU capital freedom as well as looking at the current case-law.

4. “The judicial system ... has as its keystone the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU, which, by setting up a dialogue between one court and another, specifically between the Court of Justice and the courts and tribunals of the Member States, has the object of securing uniform interpretation of EU law.” Opinion 2/13, [176].

Critically assess how Article 267 TFEU has been interpreted so as to ensure the uniformity of EU law and whether this procedure truly represents a partnership between the Court of Justice and national courts.

5. ‘On paper the requirement of a considerable influence on consumer behaviour remains as an extra threshold that must be crossed before a litigant can place on the regulator a burden to demonstrate justification for the imposition of a restriction on use of a product. But in practice that threshold is ill-shaped and vague. Robust judges such as Munby LJ in the Segway case will sweep away adventurous reliance on EU law, but the Court’s vocabulary in its cases on ‘restrictions on use’ inevitably invites and encourages such litigious adventure in future.’ S. Weatherill, ‘The Road to Ruin: “Restrictions on use” and the circular lifecycle of Article 34 TFEU. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 58/2012.

Discuss critically the instability at the heart of Article 34 TFEU case-law and consider whether Weatherill is right to be so wary.

6. Critically assess the legal and practical differences between the right of establishment as it applies to natural persons and as it applies to legal persons.

Your friend Chug has recently started to work for a small law firm located in Oxford, called Lightning & McQueen LLP. The firm specialises in cases relating to the automobile industry. Chug was asked to look into a number of files as a matter of urgency. They all seem to turn on questions of European Union law. Remembering that you have studied European Union law, Chug has turned to you for some help.

Please advise Chug on the European Union law implications of the following three cases:

a) Mater’s Garage specialises in the restoration of old cars. Recently, Mater’s sought to import into the UK a badly damaged car from the 1980’s in order to restore it. The car was seized by customs officials at Dover on the basis that it is a health hazard and was denied entry into the UK. The customs officials reject that European Union law is relevant at all to what they dismiss as ’a pile of metal garbage’.

b) Guido’s Pitstop sells motorbikes and mopeds in the UK. One of the novelty mini-mopeds the company imports from Italy has been really popular with teenagers. Earlier this year, the Government introduced legislation to ban the use of mini-mopeds by anyone under the age of 16 and also banned the advertisement of mini-mopeds on national TV, radio and the printed media. As a result, Guido’s has seen a significant fall in consumer interest and actual sales in mini-mopeds and seeks to challenge both bans.

c) Fillmore Ltd is one of the largest distributors of new and second-hand motorbikes in the UK. Most of its stock comes from other EU countries. Recently, the Government introduced legislation requiring the importers of all motorbikes not manufactured in the UK to (i) submit the bike to a roadworthiness test in the UK, (ii) register the origin of the bike with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and (iii) affix a sign identifying it as ’foreign stock’ on the bike prior to its sale. The UK authorities claim these steps are justified as a matter of the protection of health and safety and consumer protection under Article 36 TFEU. It is public knowledge that the legislation in question was introduced following sustained lobbying by the British motorcycle industry.

Andrew, a British national, moved to Athens (Greece) twenty years ago to take up an employment as a translator in a Greek company. However, due to the economic crisis, he has only been working part-time for the last two years and part of his remuneration has consisted in free lunches provided by his company. After slowly becoming depressed, he has begun to drink and has already been arrested twice after getting into fights in bars at night. Now the Greek authorities want to deport him on public policy grounds.

Andrew’s wife - Barbara - is Chilean. She has been working as a piano teacher in Athens for several years. However, her visa expired three years ago. The Greek authorities are currently considering ordering her expulsion from Greece as well.

Andrew’s brother - Connor, who is also a British national - has been studying architecture in Germany for two years. He applied for a maintenance grant this year but his application was rejected since German law prescribes that this grant can only be awarded to foreign students who have studied for at least three years in Germany, a condition that Connor does not fulfill.

Advise Andrew, Barbara and Connor on their rights under EU law and corresponding remedies before the national courts.

In Lettuvia, an EU Member State, football is by far the most popular sport, and the matches in the "Premier League" attract considerable interest both domestically and abroad. The sale of TV rights for matches generates €3 billion per year, making the Lettuvian Football Association (LFA) one of the wealthiest sporting associations in Europe. All major Lettuvian football clubs are members of the LFA.

The EU Commission decided to open proceedings against the LFA pursuant to complaints from football agents. According to the statutes of the LFA, players in the “Premier League” could only be represented by agents authorized by the LFA, which only authorised agents holding Lettuvian nationality. The Commission instituted proceedings under Regulation 1/2003, claiming that the statutes of the LFA 1) represented an unlawful decision taken by an association of undertakings and 2) an abuse of a dominant position. The LFA claimed that the EU competition rules did not apply to it, as it was a non-profit organization promoting sporting interests and contributing to the flowering of the cultural life of the State.

Discuss critically whether the statutes of the LFA might be contrary to Article 101 TFEU and/or Article 102 TFEU.

In January 2012 the European Commission adopted the Environmental Protection Directive 12/78 (fictitious). The Directive required that national law provide an authorisation procedure for industrial activities with high potential for pollution, and laid down minimum licensing requirements by installations in order for authorisation to be granted. The Directive also required, amongst other things, that national law provide interim relief for individuals who might be adversely affected by pollution. The transitional period expired on 1 January 2014.

Fred lives in Exetown, a town situated approximately one mile downwind from an agricultural chemical factory run by ExeChem Ltd. The ExeChem factory was classified as high risk according to the Environmental Protection Act 2000 (EPA; fictitious), but was licenced to operate. Under the EPA only the Environment Agency may seek interim relief pending any determination by a court under the Act. However, the Environment Agency found in a series of reports that emissions of inflammable and toxic gas are often blown on the prevailing wind towards Exetown, and Fred’s house. While the EPA did not forbid such emissions, the Directive prohibited these toxic emissions and required that their emission be criminalized. In February 2014 Fred asked the Environment Agency to close the plant under the authority of the Directive. The Agency refused to do so, arguing that under the EPA the operation of the plant was lawful.

Fred would like to challenge the continuing operation of the ExeChem plant by way of judicial review. Advise Fred as to his rights and remedies under EU law.

Maria is a mature Finnish student studying at Exmouth University. Maria works part time at the ‘Free World Café Collective’ as a waitress, though she is paid in kind through free food and drink.

The Daily Globe, a national newspaper, starts a campaign accusing the UK Government of being ‘soft on terror’ and turning the UK into a safe haven for ‘dangerous foreign activists.’ The paper runs a series of in-depth investigations on the violent anti-capitalist demonstrations in Europe. Pictured in the story were photographs of Maria at an anti-globalisation demonstration in Estonia over two years ago. During the demonstration several shop fronts were smashed by demonstrators, the city was set on fire and a number of passers-by and police officers were badly assaulted.

In April 2015 the Home Secretary discovered not only that Maria had been convicted in Estonia of criminal damage as a consequence of her involvement in the demonstration, but also had other convictions arising out of her attendance at violent rallies in Denmark and Germany. The Home Secretary orders Maria’s deportation to Finland.

Advise Maria as to any rights and remedies she might have under EU law.

A Ltd is a UK company which produces a particular type of smart phone, the ‘G- Type’. According to the latest market statistics, in Europe, A Ltd has 60% of the market for ‘G-Type’ phones; its nearest competitor B Ltd, has 35%. However, in the European market for smartphones in general, A Ltd has only 20% market share.

Consider BOTH of the scenarios below:

a) A Ltd enters into an agreement with C Ltd, a new manufacturer which has developed a new type of smartphone equipped with new incredible applications, which can even prevent road accidents. C Ltd does not have the financial resources to develop the prototype of the new smartphone, so it agrees to produce it and sell it only to A Ltd, in return for the necessary financial support to develop the project;

b) A Ltd has a distribution agreement with two chains of electronic shops across Europe, one named ‘Electro Europe’, and the other called ‘HighTech Supermarket’. A Ltd sells its ‘G-Type’ phone to Electro Europe for £300, and to HighTech Supermarket for £400. In addition to that, SciFi Shops, a third chain of electronic shops has recently approached A Ltd for an agreement on the distribution of its ‘G-Type’, but A Ltd is refusing to supply it.

The European Commission has received complaints against A Ltd in relation to the above scenarios, and asks for your advice. Advise the European Commission.

Digestible Notes was created with a simple objective: to make learning simple and accessible. We believe that human potential is limitless if you're willing to put in the work.

© 2024 Digestible Notes All Rights Reserved.

Our Socials

• Register or Log In
• 0) { document.location='/search/'+document.getElementById('quicksearch').value.trim().toLowerCase(); }">

Chapter 1 Outline answers to essay questions

The European Union has been criticised as 'undemocratic'. Critically evaluate the accuracy of this assessment by reference to the composition of the EU institutions and their respective powers in relation to law-making within the EU.

It is important when answering essay-style questions that you not only demonstrate knowledge of the relevant area, but also that you demonstrate an ability to analyse that knowledge.

You should begin by exploring the meaning of 'undemocratic' or 'democracy'. Definitions may vary but are likely to include the idea that democracy relates to the engagement of citizens with political and law-making processes. This operates through their right to select and reject, in the electoral process, the persons whom they consider will best represent their interests in formulating law and policy.

It is worth noting that the accusation of a ‘democratic deficit’ within the EU goes beyond the institutions themselves. Thus, voter apathy in European elections, perceived complexity, etc. are all relevant and recognition of such enhances the answer. However, the focus of the question concerns the institutions and therefore discussion outside of this focus should be kept to a minimum.

The answer clearly requires consideration of each of the EU law-making institutions, the European Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament, including their composition and powers.

• The European Commission : not directly elected by citizens. Describe its composition, how Commissioners are appointed. Next consider the Commission's input into law-making and its power to initiate and draft proposed secondary legislation. You are likely to conclude that the Commission is not democratically appointed but has considerable power in the making of law and policy in the European Union, indicating that its composition and functioning is undemocratic.  However, you may also consider the supervision of the Commission by other institutions which have greater democratic accountability.
• The Council : not directly elected by citizens. Do citizens nonetheless have some influence over the appointment of members of the Council? Describe the composition of the Council and how Council members are appointed. You might argue that there is an element of democracy in appointment in that the Council comprises of ministers of the Member States who in many cases will have been indirectly chosen through the relevant national democratic processes. As to the Council's powers in law, and policy-making, these are considerable. Consider in outline the main law-making procedures, pointing out that the Council has extensive input into the framing of secondary legislation, as well as the ultimate power to approve it. You should also consider how far voting in the Council can be considered democratic. This entails discussion of unanimity, simple majority and qualified majority voting and the extent to which these voting methods provide for representative decision-making. Note the recent develpment to the qualified majority voting procedure and the in-built safeguards to ensure a more democratic process.
• The European Parliament : the only EU institution that is directly elected by Union citizens but, arguably, the institution that holds the least power. You should evaluate the input of Parliament into the main legislative procedures recognising in particular, the development of what is now known (since Lisbon) as the ordinary legislative procedure. Thus, it is important to trace the development of Parliament's power from the beginnings of the EU. Originally, Parliament had the right merely to be consulted on secondary legislation, but its input was increased as the cooperation and then the co-decision procedures were introduced and as co-decision (now ordinary legislative procedure) was gradually extended to more policy areas. Parliament can now effectively veto secondary legislation which it is not in agreement with. You should also discuss the control that Parliament exerts over the executive through its power to approve the President of the Commission and the Commission as a body; its power, by vote of censure, to dismiss the entire Commission; its powers of scrutiny, including the ability to question Commissioners orally or in writing and its power to reject the annual budget.
• In conclusion : the fact that the European Parliament, the only directly elected EU institution, holds the least power supports the view that the EU is lacking in democracy. It is true that, in the vast majority of cases, the Commission initiates legislation and the use of qualified majority voting in the Council can be argued to be undemocratic. However, with the introduction of co-decision, its extension to more policy areas by amending Treaties and its current status as the primary procedure for the introduction of new secondary EU legislation (as reflected in its renaming as the ordinary legislative procedure), this democratic deficit is being gradually addressed.

Select your Country

Political Reflection

The Primacy or Supremacy Principle of the European Union Law: A Comparative Overview of British, German and French Courts’ Responses

Dr Sharifullah Dorani* | [email protected]

*South Asia and the Middle Eastern Editor at CESRAN International

Introduction

An Overview of the UK, Germany, and France’s Approaches to the Principle of the Supremacy of EU Law

Although the UK has already left the EU, the British courts’ reaction to the doctrine of EU law primacy is still relevant since it has been an essential part of EU Law modules at universities and will continue to have relevance. [ii]   The ECJ was asking the UK courts something that they were not constitutionally competent to offer. As seen in the essay on UK’s response to EU law superiority (Dorani, 2020b), the UK courts did not have the power to question the validity of an Act of Parliament due to the sovereign nature of Parliament (Loveland, 2003: 21).As seen in the first essay, the ECJ made it clear that the Member States must give primacy to EU law regardless of whether the national law was passed before or after the EU law, irrespective of the nature of the national law ( Costa , 1964; Dorani, 2020a).  The ECJ reasoned that by joining the EU, the Member States accepted the supremacy of EU law under Article 288 (ex 249 TEC) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union signed in 1957 (Dorani, 2020a). Therefore, it was vital to preserve this supremacy so that the uniformity and efficacy of EU law was ensured, even if it was at the cost of the national constitutional law of the Member States. Not only the higher courts of Member States were under the obligations to immediately give precedence to EU law over national law in a case of conflict, but also the lower courts ( Simmenthal , 1978).

However, though reluctant at first, the UK courts got around the constitutional difficulty by adopting the rule of construction on the basis of section 2 (4) of the European Communities Act 1972 and gave precedence to EU law by accepting the direct effect of directives ( Macarthys Ltd , 1979; Garland , 1983; Pickstone , 1989; Webb , 1995; Dorani, 2020b). These cases suggested that the British courts accepted the ECJ’s rulings on the direct effect of directives.  The rulings of Factortame (1991) and EOC (1995) were additional indications that the courts went further to accept the ECJ’s judgments in Simmenthal and Costa, namely that EU law took precedence over national law regardless of when the national law was passed (Dorani, 2020a).

However, the courts argued that they relied on section 2 (4) for their judgment in Factortame , suggesting that Parliament was still sovereign. This was not a convincing claim as the Parliament of 1972 was not constitutionally competent to bind the Parliament of 1988, and the courts were well aware of this fact ( Ellen Street Estates Ltd , 1934; Dorani, 2020a). The court, however, did not accept the earlier incompatible Act and held it to have been impliedly repealed. Therefore, one could argue that it was the ruling of Simmenthal that was relied on by the Supreme Court in Factortame . However, whatever the authority for Factortame might have been, the UK courts, practically speaking, accepted the supremacy of EU law without, unlike the German Courts, any threats or conditions.

Unlike the UK and French Courts, the German courts were quick – particularly the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) – to recognise the independent nature of the EU law ( Re Tax , 1963). Re Tax demonstrated that the FCC accepted the supremacy of directly effective EU law. It also made clear to the lower German courts that the ECJ’s rulings were binding inside Germany (Dorani, 2021a). Thus, the FCC was one of the first supreme courts of the Member States discussed to accept the superiority of EU law. However, the Solange I (1970) decision indicated that it was not the case any longer, as the FCC claimed that it would review the EU law like any other German law if it was in breach of the German Basic Rights.

Unlike the Supreme Court in the UK, the FCC is constitutionally competent to do so, and it was, therefore, considered a significant threat to the supremacy of EU law. But Solange II (1987) indicated that the FCC modified its Solange I jurisprudence by holding that the European level of protection for human rights now measured up to that of the German Constitution. Although it claimed that the European level of protection for human rights was similar to that of the German one, it constantly held it would use its Solange I jurisprudence if the EU institutions acted ultra vires (that is, beyond the competence that the Member States have given to the EU) or if the protection for human rights fell below the German standards ( Brunner , 1994; The Banana Litigation , 2000). This suggests that the FCC regarded itself as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality and the German Constitution superior to EU law. However, as seen in my essay on Germany’s reaction to EU law primacy (Dorani, 2021a), except for one case, the FCC, in practice, has never disregarded a provision of EU law; the one case has been, as I explained in detail in my one of my previous essays, ‘a special one and can be confined to its own facts’ (Dorani, 2021a). One could naturally conclude that the FCC, too, has (though conditionally) accepted the supremacy of EU law. The same conclusion could be even truer for the French Courts.

Like the UK courts, the French courts were reluctant to give priority to EU law as they regarded themselves constitutionally incompetent. However, the Cour de Cassation’s Vabre (1975) decision suggested that the Cour de Cassation did not see itself as incompetent and, therefore, gave superiority to EU law over the French law. At first, both the Constitutional Court and the Conseil d’Etat were not prepared to accept the superiority of EU law over French law and even on some occasions did not apply the EU provisions before them ( Semoules , 1970), which neither the Supreme Court in the UK nor the FCC in Germany ever did so. However, eventually they changed their positions and held that Article 55 of the French Constitution empowered them to give supremacy to EU law over French law, but not over the French Constitution (Dorani, 2021b; Richards, 2000: 192).

Thus, Germany and France, to a certain extent, have the same position, that is, they have accepted the supremacy of EU law as long as the EU institutions do not encroach on the German and French Constitutions. Great Britain, though it has not got a written constitution, evidently accepted the supremacy of EU law over an Act of Parliament ( Factotame , 1991; EOC , 1995). Needless to say, though, the EU law is no longer supreme in the UK, owing to Great Britain’s exit from the EU.

In theory, there have been some conflicting constitutional issues between the ECJ and the Member States studied. However, in practice, it could be concluded that the national courts have accepted the supremacy of EU law.

Some of the tension between the EU and the Member States has been over the authority for the supremacy of EU law over their national law. For example, the Member States concerned claim that they derived the authority from their own constitutional rules, whereas the ECJ want them to rely on its jurisprudence. Another contentious issue is the ultra vir e s doctrine; it is possible in the future that the national courts disregard EU law if they deem the ECJ to have acted ultra vir e s . But that possibility is remote for the reasons explained in my essays on Germany and France’s approaches to the supremacy of EU law (Dorani, 2021a; Dorani, 2021b). The UK courts did not make much of the doctrine of ultra vir e s , but, obviously, that is no longer important after the UK withdrew from the EU following the 2016 EU Referendum.

Allen, T (1997) Parliamentary Sovereignty; Law, Politics and Revolution. LQR.

Alter, K J (2000) Establishment the Supremacy of law. The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe, Oxford.

Arguments for and against the European Union. Debating Europe, https://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-european-union/#.XhO3vCSnzDs.

Boyron, S (2002) In the name of European law: the metric martyrs case. ELRev.

Bryant, R C (2018) Brexit: Make hard choices but don’t confuse sovereignty with autonomy. Brookings, 21 December.

Burke E and Walsh D (2020) German Ruling a Potential Threat to EU Law. Law Society, https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/in-depth/german-ruling-threat-to-eu-law/.

Campbell D and Young J (2002) The Metric Martyrs and the Entrenchment Jurisprudence of Lord Justice Laws. PL.

Craig P and De Burca G (3rd ed.) (2002) EC Law, Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford.

Cohen H (1994) The Conseil d’ Etat: Continuing Convergence with the Court of Justice. EL Rev.

Dag, R (2019) Interview with Dr Sharifullah Dorani on American Foreign Policy under the Trump Presidency. Political Reflection Magazine, 21 July.

Dorani, S (2019a) America in Afghanistan: Foreign Policy and Decision Making from Bush to Obama to Trump, London: I.B. Tauris, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Dorani, S (2019b) Shall the Court Subject Counter-Terrorism Law to Judicial Review?: National Security VS Human Rights. Political Reflection Magazine, 22 October.

Dorani, S (2020a) The Supremacy of EU Law over National Law: The ECJ’s Perspectives. Political Reflection Magazine, January/February 2020.

Dorani, S (2020b) EU Law vs UK Law – The Primacy of EU Law over National Law: Great Britain’s Response. Political Reflection Magazine, 31 July.

Dorani, S (2021a) The Supremacy of EU Law over German Law: EU Law vs National Law. Political Reflection Magazine, 8 January.

Dorani, S (2021b) The Primacy of EU Law over French Law: EU Law Takes Precedence over National Law? Political Reflection Magazine, April/May 2021.

Douglas-Scott, S (2002) Constitutional Law of the European Union. Longman Pearson Publishers.

Eekelaar, J (1997) The Death of Parliamentary Sovereignty- a comment. LQR.

Elber U and Urban N (2001) The Order of German Federal Constitutional Court of 7 June 2000 and the Kompetenz-Kompetenz in the Europe Judicial system. EPL.

Everling, U (1996) Will Europe slip on Bananas? The Bananas Judgement of the Europe Court and National Courts. CMR Rev.

Hanlon, J (3rd ed) (2003) European Community Law. Sweet and Maxwell.

Hartley, T (1999) Constitutional Problems of the EU. Bloomsbury 3PL.

Herdegen, M (1994) Maastricht and the German Constitutional Court: Constitutional Restraints for an ‘Ever Closer Union’. CML Rev.

Hoffmeister, F (2001) Introduction: The relationship between EC law and German constitutional law- clarification by the German Constitutional Court. CMR Rev.

Horspool, M (3 rd ed) (2000) European Union Law.  Butterworths.

Kenny, N (2020) The German Constitutional Court vs the European Court of Justice: The Fracturing of the European Legal Order?. U. Pittsburgh School of Law, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/06/nick-kenny-german-constitutional-court-eu/#.

Kumm, M (1999) Who is the Final Arbiter of Constitutionality in Europe?. CML Rev, 355.

Hood, P (8th ed) (2001) Constitutional and Administrative law. Oxford.

Gravells, N (1989) Disapplying an Act of Parliament pending a preliminary ruling: constitutional enormity or Community law right?. PL.

Keenan P B (1962) Some Legal Consequences of Britain’s Entry into the European Common Market. PL.

Loveland, I (3rd ed) (2003) Constitutional Law: A Critical Introduction. Butterworths.

Maduro, M (2020) Trigger warning: Germany, the law, and burden-sharing. European Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/ecfr.eu/article/commentary_trigger_warning_germany_the_law_and_burden_sharing/%3famp.

Mark, M (2017) The top 10 threats facing Europe, according to European. Business Insider, 15 September.

Marshall G (1997) Parliamentary Sovereignty: the new horizons. PL.

Nicol, D (1996) Disapplying with relish? The Industrial Tribunal and Acts of Parliament. PL.

O’Neill, A (1994) Decisions of the European Court of Justice and their Constitutional Implications. London Butterworths.

Peers, S (1998) Taking Supremacy Seriously. EL Rev.

Pollard, D (1990) The Conseil d’Etat is European- Official. ELRev.

Richards C (2000) Sarran et Levacher: ranking legal norms in the French Republic. EL Rev.

Steiner J (8th ed) (2003) Textbook on EC law, Blackstone.

Szyszczak, E (1990) Sovereignty: Crisis, Compliance, Confusion, Complacency. ELRev.

Tatham, A F T (1991) The effect of EU Directive in France. ICLQ.

UKEssays (November 2018). Supremacy of European Union Law in Germany and France. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/law/supremacy-of-european-union-law-in-germany-and-france.php?vref=1.

Vela, H J (2020) Hogan: Brussels will ensure ‘supremacy’ of EU law after German ruling. Politico, https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/hogan-brussels-will-ensure-supremacy-of-eu-law-after-german-ruling/amp/.

Vincenzi C and Fairhurst, J (3rd ed) (2002) Law of the European Community, Longman.

Wade, H W R (1996) Sovereignty- Revolution or Evolution? LQR Vol 112.

Weatherill, S (1st ed) (1993) EC Law, The Essential Guide to the Legal Workings of the European Community, Blackstone.

Weiss, K (2019) Beware the EU’s attempts to grab tax powers from member states. CAPX, 11 January.

Wulf-Henning, R (1991) The Application of Community Law in West Germany: 1980- 1990. CML REV.

Cases and Treaties

Alcan decision Bverf, 17 Feb. 2000, (2000) EuZW, 445.

Arrighi decision, Conseil d’Etat decision of 6 Nov 1936, [1936] Recuei Lebon 966.

Banana Litigation decision 7/6/00.

Blackburn v Attorney General [1971] 2 ALL ER 1380. Bulmer (HP) Ltd v J Bollinger SA [1974] Ch 401.

Brasserie du Pecheur [1997] 1 CMLR 971.

Brunner v REU [1994] 1 CMLR 57.

BVerfG decision, 1 BvR 248/63, 1 BvR 216/67 of 18 Oct. 1967, [1968] 1 EuR 134.

Case 6, 9/90 Francovich v Italy [1991] ECR 1-5357.

Case 6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585.

Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fur Getreide und futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125.

14/83 Von Colson v Land Northern – Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891.

Case 26/62, NV. Algemene Transport- en  Expedities Ondeneming Vand Gend en Loss v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1936] ECR 1.

C- 32/93 Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd [1992] ECR 1.

Case 41/47 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337.

Case 48/71 Commission v Italy [1972] ECR 532.

Case 77/63 Re Tax on Malt Barley [1963] Eur 10 130, [1964] 10 CMLR 130.

Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA [1978] ECR 629.

C- 106/89 Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internactional de Alimentaccion SA [1990] ECR 1.

CE, (Ass) (1998) Sarran et Levacher, conclusions Ch mauggue, Revue francaise de droit administrative, October 30, n, 14, 1081.

Confederation nationale des societies de protection des anima de France et des pays d’ expression francaise case. administrative (1984).

Conseil Constitutionnel decision 74-71 DC of 29/30 Dec. 1976, [1976] Recueil des Decisions du Conseil Costitutionnel 15.

Duke v GEC Reliance [1988] 1 ALL ER 626.

Ellen Street Estates Ltd. v. Ministers of Health [1934] AC 765.

Federation francaise des societs de protection de la nature case administrative (1985).

Felixstowe Dock and Rly Co and European Ferries Ltd v British Docks Board (1976) 2 CMLR 655.

Finnegan v Clowney Youth Training Programme [1990] 2 AC 407.

Firma Alfons Lutticke GmbH, Koln-Deutz, BVerfG 2 BvR 225/69. [1972] 1 EuR 51, [1971] NJW 2122.

Garland v British Rail Engineering [1983] 2 AC 751.

Germany v Council (1994), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61995CJ0122.

Harris v Minister of Interior (1952) AC 526.

Lee v Bude and Torrington Junction Rly Co (1871) LR 6 CP 576.

Litster v Forth Dry Dock [1989] 1 ALL ER 1134.

Lutticke(Alfons) GmbH v Hauptzollanmt Saarlouis, ECJ Case 57/65, [1966] ECR 205.

Macarthys Ltd v Smith (1979) 3 ALL ER.

Marleasing SA v La Comecial Internacional de Alimentacion SA [1990] ECR 1.

Mediguard Services Ltd v Thame (unreported).

Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2017] UKSC 5.

Minister of Interior v Cohn- Bendit [1980] 1 CMLR 543.

Nicolo [1990] 1 CMLR 17.

NV Algemene Transport-Expedite Onderneming Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) Case 26/62.

Pickin [1974] BRB AC 765.

Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 68.

Prebble v Television New Zealand (1995) (access via http://web.lexis-nexis.com/prefesional ).

R v Attorney General, Ex parte ICI, Queen’s Bench Division, 60 Tax Cases 25 January 1985.

R v Secretory of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd [1989] 1 CMLR 277 (QBD).

R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2) [1991] 1 ALL ER 70.

R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission (1995) 1 AC 1.

Rathmans and Arizona Tobacco Products [1993] 1 CMLR 252.

Re a Rehabilitation Center [1992] 2 CMLR 21.

Re Boisdet [1991] 1 CMLR 3.

Re Kloppenburg [1988] 3 CMLR.

Re Vat Directives [1982] 1 CMLR 527.

Sex Discrimination Act 1972.

Steinike und Weinling v Bundesamt fur Ernabrung und Forstwirtschaft ‘Vielleicht decision. Bverfg decision 2 BvL 6/77 [1980] 2 CMLR 531.

Sun International v Sun Oil Trading Company and another Queen’s Bench Division (unreported judgment of 30 July 1986).

Syndicat General de Fabricants de Semoules de France [1970] CMLR 395.

The Colonial Validity Act 1865.

The Constitution of the Fifth Republic, adopted on 4 October 1958.

The Employment Protection Act 1978.

The European Community Act 1972.

The European Economic Community (EEC) Treaty 1957. Also known as the Rome Treaty.

The European Union Act 2011.

The European Union Withdrawal Act 2018.

The MSA 1988.

The Lisbon Treaty 2007.

The Statute Westminster 1931.

The Treaty on European Union 1992. Also known as The Maastricht Treaty.

Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 1 CMLR 50.

Vabre [1975] 2 CMLR 336.

Vabre (Conseil Constitutionnel decision 86-216 of 3 Sep (1986).

Vauxhall Estates Ltd. V. Liverpool Corpn (1932) 1 KB 733.

Von Kempis v Geldof [1976] 2 CMLR 152, Administration des Douanes v Epuran et autres Cass. Crim., December 5, 1983.D. 1983.217.

Webb v EMO [1995].

Wunsche Handelsgesellscaft [1987] 3 CMLR 225. Also referred as Solange II .

[i] The essays are inspired by my undergraduate law dissertation. I am and will remain grateful for the support I received from the University of Northampton during my undergraduate years, especially from my brilliant EU law lecturer Sarah Willis.

[ii] See my articles for a discussion of why it is significant, Dorani 2020b; Dorani, 2019b. See my book and interview with Professor Rahman Dag for a detailed discussion of the factors that might have also played a part in causing Brexit, Dorani, 2019a; Dag, 2019.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Call for Contributions
• Current Issue
• Vol. 9 | No. 3
• Vol. 9 | No. 2
• Vol. 9 | No. 1
• Vol. 8 | No. 4
• Vol. 8 | No. 3
• Vol. 8 | No. 2
• Vol. 8 | No. 1
• Vol. 7 | No. 4
• Vol. 7 | No. 3
• Vol. 7 | No. 2
• Vol. 7 | No. 1
• Vol. 6 | No. 4
• Vol. 6 | No. 3
• Vol. 6 | No. 2
• Vol. 6 | No. 1
• Vol. 5 | No. 4
• Vol. 5 | No. 3
• Vol. 5 | No. 2
• Vol. 5 | No. 1
• Vol. 4 | No. 5
• Vol. 4 | No. 4
• Vol. 4 | No. 3

Related Post

Are thousands of palestinian lives enough to restore israeli myth no, it is not, understanding social licence for australian critical minerals production a new terrestrial politics, dialogue session on the karabakh armenians in yevlakh city, multi-track eu enlargement in the first year of war: the bosnian and georgian cases, poverty and inequality in the world: focusing on the food crisis, how to define the presence of the türkiye in the south caucasus: nato or turkic world.

• European Forum
• The Constitutional Dimension of the European Union

The sources of EU law

The Human-centric Perspective in the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

Abstract : The development of new emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, has sparked a scientific debate on their risks and benefits. This debate necessitates legal and regulatory considerations, particularly regarding the balance between technological growth and the protection of human rights. This Insight analyses the...

Mutual Trust and EU Accession to the ECHR: Are We Over the Opinion 2/13 Hurdle?

Abstract : After more than forty years of discussion and a decade after the CJEU struck down EU accession to the ECHR in Opinion 2/13, negotiators provisionally approved a new version of the Accession Instruments in March 2023. This Insight examines how this new draft of the Accession Instruments has addressed the mutual trust concerns...

Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen, ovvero la tutela dei diritti fondamentali sulla base del test LM nelle procedure di trasferimento interstatale di detenuti

Abstract: In the judgment handed down on 9 November 2023 by the Court of Justice in Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen , the Court has acknowledged that the two-step test aimed at protecting fundamental rights, which was developed in relation to the European Arrest Warrant in Aranyosi and Căldăraru and confirmed by subsequent judgments – in...

El Impacto de la Accesibilidad en el Derecho a la Vida Privada y Familiar

Abstract: Persons with disabilities keep struggling to enjoy their rights on equal conditions with other people despite being granted the right of non-discrimination under several international treaties. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is increasingly turning to a systemic interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights with the...

Five Surgical Strikes on the Treaties of the European Union

An Unusual Insight : A short premise by the Board of Editors. This is an unusual Insight. It does not look at the existing law of the Union but rather at its possible and auspicious development. It does not ad-dress only the scholarly world, but also the much wider circle of persons interested in the future of the Union. In spite of this feature, or ...

The Court of Justice Finally Rules on the Analogical Application of Art. 351 TFEU: End of the Story?

Keywords: article 351 TFEU – prior agreements – Member States international obligations – treaty conflict – conflict clause – analogical application.

As is well-known, art. 351 TFUE is a so-called conflict clause within the meaning of art. 30(2) of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties. Conflict rules are common...

L’effettività del cd. 'regolamento di blocco' tra coercizione straniera e libertà di impresa: la Corte di giustizia si pronuncia nel caso Bank Melli Iran

Abstract: On 21 December 2021, the Court of Justice decided the case Bank Melli Iran v Telekom Deutschland GmbH (case C-124/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1035), relating to the interpretation of Regulation 2271/96 protecting against the effects of extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, better known as the “blocking...

The Curious Incident of the ‘State Aid’ Granted by an International Arbitral Tribunal

Abstract: In case C-638/19 P Commission v European Food ECLI:EU:C:2022:50, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the Commission was competent to assess the compatibility of State aid granted as a consequence of an arbitral award issued against Romania by a tribunal established under a bilateral investment...

The Green Deal and the Case for a Soil Health Framework Directive

Keywords: soil – Green Deal – climate change – Framework Directive – environmental law – subsidiarity.

In its 2020 Report on the State of the Environment, the European Environment Agency highlighted the increasingly serious degradation of EU soils. [1] Soils constitute largely...

What the European Commission does in law

Principal roles in law.

The Commission proposes and implements laws which are in keeping with the objectives of the EU treaties. It encourages input from business and citizens in the law-making process and ensures laws are correctly implemented, evaluated and updated when needed.

Areas where the EU can pass laws

Every action taken by the EU is founded on the treaties that have been approved democratically by its members. The treaties are binding agreements between EU countries and set out EU objectives, rules for EU institutions, how decisions are made and the relationship between the EU and its members. Treaties are the starting point for EU law.

The EU can only act in those areas where its member countries have authorised it to do so, via the EU treaties. The treaties specify who can pass laws in what areas: the EU, national governments or both.

Types of EU law  

Areas of EU action  

Proposing laws

The European Commission is responsible for planning, preparing and proposing new European laws. It has the right to do this on its own initiative. The laws it proposes must defend the interests of the Union and its citizens as a whole. The Commission submits a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, who must agree on the text for it to become EU law.

Planning and proposing law

Better regulation

Citizens, business, civil society, public authorities or any other stakeholder can have their say in the EU's law-making process. This is referred to as better regulation.

Based on evidence and the views of citizens and stakeholders, the Commission proposes new laws.

Better regulation: why and how

Making rules for implementation

Once an EU law is passed, the Council of the European Union or European Parliament can authorise the Commission to adopt two types of non-legislative acts to ensure that laws are implemented properly (implementing acts) or updated if necessary to reflect developments in a particular sector (delegated acts).

Implementing and delegating acts  

Ensuring correct implementation

The Commission is responsible for monitoring whether EU laws are applied correctly and on time. In this role, the Commission is referred to as the 'guardian of the treaties'.

The Commission will take steps if an EU country does not fully incorporate a directive into its national law by the set deadline or has not applied EU law correctly.

If national authorities fail to implement EU laws, the Commission may start formal infringement proceedings against the country in question.

Monitoring implementation of EU directives  

Infringement procedure

Evaluating and updating laws

The Commission regularly evaluates whether EU laws have delivered the desired changes to European business and citizens.

The findings of an evaluation help the Commission to decide whether EU actions should be continued or changed.

Along with evaluations and fitness checks (assessing several related actions), the Commission's REFIT programme help make existing EU laws simpler and less costly to apply.

As part of its better regulation agenda, anyone can provide feedback on plans for evaluations and fitness checks and take part in public consultations on ongoing evaluations.

Evaluating laws

Share this page

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Entering and staying in the UK
• Permanent stay in the UK

Home Office confirms changes to the EU Settlement Scheme

The changes will ensure that citizens can continue to prove their rights easily, and bring greater clarity for those required to check immigration status.

Photo: Getty Images

Changes to the EU Settlement Scheme announced today will ensure that all those granted pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme can continue to prove their rights easily, and bring greater clarity for those who are required to check immigration status, such as employers and landlords.  

The changes support the Home Office’s practical implementation of the High Court judgment in the judicial review proceedings brought by the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements ( IMA ).

In response to that judgment, we announced changes to the EU Settlement Scheme in July 2023 to ensure that nobody loses their immigration status if they do not apply to switch from pre-settled to settled status. 

The Home Office has continued to work closely with the IMA on the implementation of the judgment. Having listened to concerns raised by the IMA and others about the potential implications for those affected by the judgment, the changes announced today will ensure it remains easy for status holders to demonstrate their rights in the UK.  

The Home Office will change the duration of pre-settled status extensions from 2 to 5 years. The Home Office will also remove the pre-settled status expiry date from the digital profiles shown to third parties in the online checking services for Right to Work, Right to Rent and View and Prove.

Alongside this change, employers, landlords and letting agents will not be required to conduct a further right to work or rent check where the individual remains in their employment or as part of that tenancy agreement.  

The EU Settlement Scheme has been a great success. As of 31 December 2023, 5.7 million people had secured their rights in the UK through the scheme, with 2 million holding pre-settled status and 3.7 million holding settled status.

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

• Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
• Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea rules carbon dioxide is an ocean pollutant

A global maritime court has found that greenhouse gases constitute marine pollution — a major breakthrough for small island states threatened by the rise in sea levels caused by global warming. 

In its first climate-related judgment, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea said emissions from fossil fuels and other planet-warming gases that are absorbed by the oceans count as marine pollution.

It also said countries had an obligation to take measures to mitigate their effects on oceans.

The countries that brought the case called the court decision "historic" and experts said it could be influential in shaping the scope of future climate litigation involving greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The court ruled in an expert opinion that "anthropogenic GHG emissions into the atmosphere constitute pollution of the marine environment" under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Polluting countries therefore have "the specific obligation to take all measures necessary to ensure that … emissions under their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage by pollution to other states and their environment", the court said.

The UNCLOS treaty binds countries to prevent pollution of the oceans, defining pollution as the introduction of "substances or energy into the marine environment" that harm marine life.

But it does not spell out carbon emissions as a specific pollutant, and the plaintiffs had argued that these emissions should qualify.

Win for low-lying island nations 

The case was brought in September by nine small countries disproportionately affected by climate change, including Antigua and Barbuda, Vanuatu and Tuvalu.

They asked the Hamburg-based court to issue an opinion on whether carbon dioxide emissions absorbed by the oceans could be considered pollution, and if so, what obligations countries had to address the problem.

Over two days of hearings in September, the leaders of the nine countries said the effects of climate change were threatening their nations' very existence.

The court's opinion is advisory and non-binding but will influence how the UN treaty is interpreted around the world.

"This is the first-ever decision by an international tribunal on climate change and the oceans and clarifies the legally binding obligations of 169 countries that are party to the [UNCLOS treaty]," the nine plaintiff countries said in a statement.

The prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda, Gaston Browne, said small island nations were "fighting for their survival".

"Some will become uninhabitable in the near future because of the failure to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions," Mr Browne said.

"We demand that the major polluters respect international law and stop the catastrophic harm against us before it is too late."

Ruling the first of its kind

The case is seen as the first big international climate justice case involving the world's oceans and experts say it could have far-reaching implications for countries' future climate change obligations.

Senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) Joie Chowdhury said in a statement that the court made its position clear.

"For the first time, an international court has recognised that the fates of two global commons — the oceans and the atmosphere — are intertwined and imperilled by the climate crisis," Ms Chowdhury said.

"Today's historic climate Advisory Opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea unequivocally affirms that states have clear and specific obligations under international law to act urgently, ambitiously, and equitably to protect our precious oceans from the drivers and impacts of climate change."

CIEL said the ruling is the first of three key international court advisory opinions on climate change.

The others are due to be given by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice.

Executive director at the International Institute for Environment and Development Tom Mitchell told AFP the tribunal's opinion "is an important marker on the legal responsibility for the effects of climate change, which will doubtless be influential in shaping the scope and direction of future climate litigation".

Ocean ecosystems create half the oxygen humans breathe and limit global warming by absorbing much of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities.

But increasing emissions can warm and acidify sea waters, harming marine life and ecosystems.

Rising global sea temperatures are also accelerating the melting of polar ice caps and increasing sea levels, posing an existential threat to small island nations.

The EU's Copernicus Climate Change Service found global sea surface temperatures hit a monthly record in April for the thirteenth month in a row.

AFP/Reuters/ABC

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

'we're going to sink': residents escape island hit by rising sea levels.

These Australians fear becoming climate change refugees if the sea keeps rising

• Antigua and Barbuda
• Climate Change
• Environmental Impact
• Environmental Management
• Environmental Policy
• International Courts and Tribunals
• Oceans and Reefs
• Saint Vincent and The Grenadines
• World Politics