EU LAW

Friday 10 March Overview of Lecture

The TFEU sets out mechanisms by which legislation is created and
Session One this legislation, in common with many provisions of the Treaties,
Lecture may have a significant impact on the lives of individuals and the
behaviour of undertakings within the territory of the Union. The
The Constitutional Treaties do not, however, set out whether individuals before their
domestic courts can invoke EU law provisions. This lacuna was
Doctrines of EU law
filled by the Court of Justice, which developed the doctrines of
Professor Andrea direct effect and supremacy, thus giving full force to EU law. We
start by looking at the notion of direct effect, as it was advanced in
Biondi
the seminal Van Gend en Loos and Costa judgments. We need then
09:15 – 10:30 need to analyse how the notion of direct effect developed over the
years, in particular as regards EU legislation, where there have been
Chancellors Hall many problems as regards EU directives. We will briefly touching
upon some of the issues affected by the possible withdrawal of the
United Kingdom from the EU

Reading
• EU Law Subject Guide – Chapter 5.
Please have another look at seminal judgments such as:
• Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der
Belastingen [1963] ECR 1
• Case 6/64 Costa v Enel [1964] ECR 585
• Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135
• Joined Cases C-6 and C-9/90, Francovich and others [1991] ECR I-5357.
We will also look in more details at
• Case C-438/05 Viking Line Abp, [2007] I-10779
• Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others [2004] ECR I-8835
• Case C-176/12 AMS. EU:C:2014:2

UK – EU
• Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016]
EWHC 2768 (Admin) (https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-
miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/) *UK
Supreme Court appeal decision is expected by Jan 2017
All cases mentioned are available on the website http://curia.
europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/.

259
 EU LAW


Tutorial reources
In the past four years, Anna, a Latvian national, has been working as a translator for ‘Sunny Florence’, a
Tourist Office in Florence, Italy. Sunny Florence is financed for 60% by the City Council and 40% by an
association of local shopkeepers. Anna complained repeatedly of the fact that everybody was smoking
at her workplace, but no measure was taken. In December 2015, after having discovered that she was
pregnant, she complained again, asking for a separate office in the building. Her boss advised her to
quit the job if she did not like the work conditions. In January 2016, after having resigned, she finds out
about the existence of the Directive 2003/49 that provides:
• Article 1
• Smoking shall be prohibited in all workplaces
• Article 2
• Employees who are unlawfully exposed to cigarette smoke in their work place shall have a right to at least
one month salary by means of compensation.
She claims the compensation provided in article 2, but she is rejected for lack of legal basis. Italy has
not yet implemented Directive 2003/49. The deadline for transposing Directive 2003/49 was the 1st of
March 2014.
Anna decides to bring a case before the Italian Court.

260
 EU LAW
Session Two Lecture

Friday 10 March Overview of Lecture

The aim for this seminar is to introduce you to the main principles
Session Two and the legal structure of the core policy of the EU: the creation of
Lecture an internal market. We will start by studying the free movement
of goods, and in particular Article 34 TFEU, which concerns non-
Free Movement of fiscal import restrictions. This provision, prohibiting ‘quantitative
Goods and services restrictions and measures having equivalent effect’ has become,
thanks to the interpretation given to it by the ECJ, the centrepiece
Professor Andrea of the internal market for goods: it essentially prohibits any
Biondi and Ms Oana governmental measure interfering with intra-EU trade. We will
Stefan look at the signpost cases on Article 34 – the cases which are
considered to define the scope and boundaries of the prohibition.
10:45 – 11:30 With respect to Article 34 it is important to appreciate the diversity
of national rules and policies, which may and have been examined
Chancellors Hall under this provision, in particular in relation to ‘indistinctly
applicable measures’. We will also look at the Court’s approach to
the justification of restrictions under the ‘mandatory requirements’,
a judge-made exception operating next to the Treaty exception
in Article 36. You should in particular aim to appreciate in what
way the ECJ attempts to balance the free-trade principle and
democratically decided national policies. Technically, such
balancing takes place by applying the principle of proportionality.
We will also look at the other Treaty provisions, in particular Article
36, allowing for derogations from the free movement of goods.

Reading
• EU law Subject Guide – Chapter 6.
Please have another look at seminal judgments such as:
• C-8/74 Dassonville (Whisky in Belgium) [1974] ECR 837
• C-120/78 Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur
Branntwein [1979] ECR 649
• C-267 and 268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097
• C-34,35 & 36/95 KO v De Agostini [1997] ECR I-3843
• C-405/98 KO v Gourmet International Products, [2001] ECR I-1795.
• C-110/05 Commission v Italy (mopeds) EU:C:2009:66
We will also look in more details at
• Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, [2003] ECR I-5659
• Case C‑244/06 Dynamic Medien [2008] ECR I‑505
• Case 333/14 Scotch Whisky Association ECLI: EU: C: 2015:845

261
 EU LAW
Session Two Tutorial

Friday 10 March Tutorial

Please prepare a draft answer to this tutorial question.
Session Two
Tutorial
Biborova is a Latvian company producing vodka, well known in
Free Movement of particular for Bibotal, a line of ready-made vodka cocktails that it
Goods and services markets in 1 litre plastic bottles. Bibotal is mainly destined to home
consumption, and is not distributed to pubs, bars or restaurants.
Professor Andrea In May 2014 Biborova decides to enter the Polish market with
Biondi and Ms Oana Bibotal, but encounters several difficulties. First, the Intoxicating
Substances Law of 2010 provides that intoxicating substances no
Stefan matter how big the alcohol concentration can only be marketed
11:30 – 12:15 in glass bottles, for reasons of consumer protection and public
health. Biborova will thus incur high packaging costs in order to be
Group A: able to sell its products on the Polish market. Second, according to
Chancellors Hall the Advertisement Law of 2014, alcohol can only be advertised in
pubs, bars and restaurants, as well as in specialized gastronomic
Group B: magazines.
Torrington Room (104) Biborova fears that this will seriously diminish its chances to be
known on the Polish market. Biborova’s advisors think that the
Intoxicating Substances Law and the Advertisement Law of 2014
are contrary to European law.
You are the company lawyers and the government team.

262
 EU LAW
Session Three Lecture

Friday 10 March Overview of Lecture

The EU Treaty does not only provide for the free movement of
Session Three goods, but also for the free movement of persons.  This week,
Lecture we start our study of such free movement by looking at the free
movement of workers. The principles are contained in Article 45
The Charter of itself which sets out the scope of the right to free movement,
Fundamental Rights as well as the exceptions: see the reference in paragraph 3 to
limitations on grounds of public policy, public security or public
Professor Andrea health, and the exception in paragraph 4 concerning employment
Biondi and Ms Oana in the public service. We will also look at the changes brought
Stefan by the introduction of provisions on European citizenship which
appears to establish a general right to freedom of movement and
13:00 – 13:45 residence. We will examine whether recent ECJ case law confirms
such a tendency. There are however further rights, including
Chancellors Hall political rights, created in the framework of citizenship, and we will
look into those as well.

Reading
EU law Subject Guide – Chapter 12.

Cases
• C-53/81 Levin [1982] ECR 1035
• Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale
d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve [2001] ECR I-6193
• C-413/99 Baumbast, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2002] ECR I-7091
• Case C-34/09 Zambrano, ECLI EU:C:2011:124
We will discuss in detail:
• Case C-256/11 Dereci, ECLI:EU:C:2011: 734.
• Case C-333/13 Dano, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358
• Case 67/14 Alimanovic ECLI:EU:C:2015:597
• Case 308/14 Commission v UK ECLI:EU:C:2016:436

263
 EU LAW
Session Three Tutorial

Friday 10 March Tutorial

Please prepare a draft answer to this tutorial question.
Session Three
Tutorial
Mr. Charles Rimbaud is a French national who after a short
The Charter of stay in Amsterdam in 2004 (during which time he worked as a
Fundamental Rights self employed door-to-door encyclopedia salesman) returned
there in 2012. He resided first at a campsite near Amsterdam
Professor Andrea and later at one Youth Hostel. From January 2012 he was given
Biondi and Ms Oana accommodation in a Salvation Army hostel, where in return for
board and lodging and some pocket money he did various jobs
Stefan for about 30 hours a week as part of a personal socio-occupational
13:45 – 14:30 reintegration programme.
As Mr. Rimbaud had no other resources, he approached the Dutch
Group A: Social Benefits Authority (SBA) to receive some financial support.
Torrington Room (104) He argued that he needed to pay the hostel and should also be
able to leave the hostel sooner or later and live independently.
Group B:
The Dutch SBA refused Mr. Rimbaud’s application on the grounds
Chancellors Hall that the income support could be granted only to Dutch nationals,
EU migrant workers or EU self employed individuals. Mr. Rimbaud
did not possess the Dutch nationality and could not be considered
as economically active.
Mr. Rimbaud seeks your advice as a European law expert. Please
help if you can!

264
 EU LAW
Session Four Lecture

Friday 10 March Lecture

Please prepare a draft answer to this tutorial question.
Session Four
Lecture
When the EEC was created in 1957 little thought was given to the
Citizenship and Free protection of fundamental rights within the field of application
Movement of Persons of Community law; after all, there was the 1950 European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in the framework of the
Professor Andrea Council of Europe, which was intended to form the basis for the
Biondi and Ms Oana protection of human rights in Europe, and the EEC was intended
to be an organisation dealing with mainly economic matters.
Stefan But with the development of EC law came the realisation that
14:45 – 15:30 fundamental rights could not be ignored. As the Community was
not a party to the ECHR, and as the EEC Treaty did not say much
Chancellors Hall about fundamental rights, the ECJ chose to categorise ‘human’ or
‘fundamental’ rights as unwritten general principles of EU law. In
these lectures we will examine this development of fundamental
rights protection through case-law. We will also look at the
relationship between the ECJ and the European Court of Human
Rights. And we will look at the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,
proclaimed at the Nice European Council (December 2000), and
now incorporated in the Treaty of Lisbon.

Reading
• EU law Subject Guide – Chapter 12.
Pre-Charter
• Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925
• C-36/02 Omega [2004] ECR I-9609
• Case C-13/94 P v S and Cornwall County Council [1996] ECR I-2143
The impact of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (in details)
• C-617/10 Fransson, EU: C: 2013:105
• Case 395/15 Daouidi ECLI: EU: C:2016:917
• Case C-293/12 Digital Rights Ireland ECLI: EU: C: 2014:238

265
 EU LAW
Session Four Tutorial

Friday 10 March Tutorial

Please prepare a draft answer to this tutorial question.
Session Four
Tutorial
A leading German newspaper, Die Sonne, has discovered that Sir
Citizenship and Free Johnny Elton, a famous English pop singer, does not pay taxes
Movement of Persons in the UK. They have discovered this by hacking into his private
email account. Sir Johnny received his title on the condition that
Professor Andrea he would become a tax resident of the UK, which previously was
Biondi and Ms Oana not the case. The discovery is therefore likely to give rise to a huge
outcry, in the British Isles and elsewhere. Die Sonne, which also
Stefan operates a website under a pay-per-view system, is planning to
15:30 – 16:15 publish an English version of the breaking story on that website,
but intends to charge 5 euro for access to it. Sir Johnny finds out
Group A: what Die Sonne’s plans are, and immediately starts proceedings
Chancellors Hall in the UK courts for an injunction against the German paper to
prevent them from running the story. In those proceedings, Die
Group B: Sonne argues that it has rights under EU free movement of services
Torrington Room (104) provision. Sir Johnny, on the other hand, bases his claim on Art
7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which provides that
“Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family
life, home and communications”. And now in court…
You are the barrister instructed by Sir Johnny. Please prepare your
submission.

266