Topic 1 and 2

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Katie
  • Created on: 10-01-16 10:38

Factortame III

National rules must not be an obsticle to EU Law.

1 of 30

Francovich v Italian Republic

Facts: D not brought w/in time limit

MS have obligations under Art 3

Subject clear and precise= use against MS leg that's incompatable

Rights on I, indentifyable rights & link between the obligation and damage

2 of 30

Wagner Miret

Aims of D not met MS must make good 'any loss and damage sustained as a result of the failure to implement the directive

3 of 30


D can't be used against I

Nat law past and present should be interpreted in accordance w/ EU Law

Not always possible but as far as possible

4 of 30

Van Gend En Loos

Prelim ruling should be question on interpretation

Art 18 TFEU gives verticle DE and individual rights for all treaties

Clear and unconditional


5 of 30

Defrenne v Sabena

Equal pay case 

Horisontal DE for Treaties

6 of 30

Leonesio and Politi

Horisontal and vertical DE for Regulations

R have DE and as a result create individual rights

7 of 30

Van Duyn v Home Office

Only vertical DE for D

Clear precise and unconditional

8 of 30


D time limit must pass before DE can be invoked 

Is it effective if individuals can't rely on it in nat court?

Unconditional and precise

9 of 30

Marshall v Southampton Health Authority

Vertical DE for D

10 of 30

Roquette Freres

If procedural requirement not met the law is void

11 of 30

Art 267

Prelim rulings- interpretation of treaty and interpretation and validity of acts of agencies of EU

No judicial remedy under nat law= prelim ref

12 of 30

Art 340

EU should 'make good any loss and damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties'

13 of 30

Referal for Preliminary Referance

CILFIT: No obligation to refer if previous CJEU ruling or if it is irrelevant 

Dzodzi v Belgium: National court determines the relevance

Da Costa: Previous ruling does not stop a referance

Rheinmuhlen: National precedent of interpretation doesn't stop reference

14 of 30

Refusal of Preliminary Referance

Foglia: No genuine dispute

Meilicke: Hypothetical question

Telemarsicabruzzo: Insufficiant information

15 of 30


Natural or legal person

16 of 30


Individually concerned if it 'affects his legal position, in a manner which is both definate and immediate, by restricting his rights or by imposing obligations on him' 

17 of 30

Foto Frost

National court has no jurisdiction to declare measures by community institutions invalid

Only CJEU can declare EU law invalid

18 of 30


Measures should be appropriate and necesary for objectives

If there is a choice, the least onerous should be chosen

19 of 30

Commission v Council Recovery of Indirect Taxes

When looking at legal basis there is a 'predominant aim and content' rule

20 of 30

Art 258

Commission thinks MS has failed obligation: gives reasoned opinion to MS

If MS doesn't comply in time C brings MS to CJEU

21 of 30

Art 259

MS 1 thinks MS 2 has not fulfilled obligations

C gives reasoned opinion

If opinion not w/in 3 months case can be brought to CJEU

22 of 30

Breech of EU Law

Schoppenstedt: Sufficiantly serious breech

Dumortier: Causation

Bergaderm: Rule confers rights on individuals

23 of 30

R v HM Treasury British Communications

SL can arise if D not implemented properly

Also for Administrative Acts Headley Lomas

24 of 30

Simmenthal and Costa v ENEL

Conflicting nat law must be set aside whether before or after EU Law

25 of 30

Kobler v Austria

State Liability if incorrect interpretation of community law

26 of 30

Foster v British Gas

Public body provides a service under state control and w/ special powers beyond those normally applicable between individuals

27 of 30

Internationale Handelsgeseuschaft

EU Law takes precedence over national law including national constitutional law

28 of 30

Germany v European Parliament Tobacco Advertising

D doesn't mean stricter rules can't be brought in be MS

EU has competance to harmonise laws

29 of 30

UK v Council

Misuse of powers ie legal basis to evade procedure= claim

30 of 30


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all EU Law resources »