EU Law
Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in
each of the black spaces below before clicking
on it to display the answer.
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internationale Handelsgesellchaft | Principle of Supremacy, EU Law takes precedence over national constitutions - originates general principles of EU Law
🗑
|
||||
| General Principles of EU Law | Unclear, Right to Equal Treatment, Non-Discrimination etc
🗑
|
||||
| Hauer | {Vine, Germany, Property Rights}, Must be proportionate
🗑
|
||||
| Treaty of Amsterdam | Possibility to suspend state for serious and persistent breach of fundamental rights
🗑
|
||||
| Article 7 TEU | Risk of serious breach of EU Values, Existence of Serious Breach, Council must reach 4/5 Majority
🗑
|
||||
| Lisbon on ECFR | Fundamental Rights shall constitute general principles of the Union's Law
🗑
|
||||
| Scope of Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights | Article 51
🗑
|
||||
| Scope of Charter | Only when implementing EU Law
🗑
|
||||
| Léger | {French, MSM Blood}, Implementing Directive, Non-Discrimination
🗑
|
||||
| Fransson | Fishing on Swedish/Finnish Border, Tax Fraud, VAT comes within EU Law as Central Fund exists
🗑
|
||||
| Siragusa | Planning Permission does not come within scope of EU Law
🗑
|
||||
| Siragusa Test | Implementing EU Law requires a certain degree of connection above and beyond the matters being covered being closely related or one of those matters having an indirect impact on the other
🗑
|
||||
| Costa v ENEL | Principle of Supremacy
🗑
|
||||
| Internationale Handelsgesellschaft Primacy | EU Law not subject to ANY provision of national law
🗑
|
||||
| Simmenthal | Every National Court has duty to apply EU Law in its entirety
🗑
|
||||
| MJELR v WRC | Irish Equality Tribunal has no EU jurisdiction, pending outcome
🗑
|
||||
| Factortame | Disapplied UK Parliamentary Sovereignty, EU Law applies regardless of national rules
🗑
|
||||
| Taricco | If disapplying national law entails a breach of the rights of defendants, the national court is not obliged to do so.
🗑
|
||||
| Van Gend en Loos | {German chemicals, customs tariff}
🗑
|
||||
| Direct Effect Requirements General | Clear and Precise, Unconditional, Don't require further implementation
🗑
|
||||
| Petrie | {Italian foreign language lecturer, sought access to case documents}
🗑
|
||||
| Petrie (2) | Failed because not unconditional
🗑
|
||||
| Defrenne v SABENA | {Equal Pay}
🗑
|
||||
| Carbonari | {Trainee Doctor Remuneration}
🗑
|
||||
| Carbonari (2) | Not unconditional
🗑
|
||||
| Van Duyn v Home Office | {Scientology}
🗑
|
||||
| Van Duyn Criteria | Clear and Precise, Unconditional, Time Limit Expired
🗑
|
||||
| Ratti | {Solvent labeling prosecution}
🗑
|
||||
| Ratti (2) | Time limit had not expired
🗑
|
||||
| Wallonie | Must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed
🗑
|
||||
| Marshall v Southampton AHA | {60/65 Retirement} - Public Hospital Emanation of State
🗑
|
||||
| Foster v British Gas | Bodies which where subject to the authority or control of the State or had special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals
🗑
|
||||
| Farrell v Whitty | {MIBI, emanation of state}
🗑
|
||||
| Whitty Test | Task in Public Interest and Special Powers
🗑
|
||||
| AMS | {Right to Elect Staff Representatives}
🗑
|
||||
| Direct Effect of ECFR | Other principles can be invoked but not yet tested
🗑
|
||||
| Mangold v Helm | {Fixed Term Contracts, Germany}
🗑
|
||||
| Mangold (2) | Succeeded using general principle of equal treatment
🗑
|
||||
| Van Colson | Established principle of sincere cooperation
🗑
|
||||
| Marleasing | {Sought to avoid debt third party company}
🗑
|
||||
| Marleasing (2) | Indirect Effect can be invoked horizontally
🗑
|
||||
| Adeneler v ELOG | Indirect effect can only be invoked after time limit expires
🗑
|
||||
| Adeneler (2) | The Wallonie Principle applies also to Indirect Effect
🗑
|
||||
| Wagner Miret | If it is impossible to interpret legislation, no indirect effect
🗑
|
||||
| IMPACT | Cannot retrospectively interpret laws through indirect effect
🗑
|
||||
| Ajos | National Courts must diverge from established case law through indirect effect
🗑
|
||||
| Legitimate Expectations Indirect Effect | Divergence from case law does not disturb
🗑
|
||||
| Unilever Italia v Central Foods | {Olive Oil Law, Three Parties}
🗑
|
||||
| Wells v Secretary of State for Transport | {Quarry}
🗑
|
||||
| Wells Principle | Individuals can rely on EU directives against government even where this has adverse repercussions on the rights of third parties
🗑
|
||||
| Francovich | {Successful State Liability, Insolvency}
🗑
|
||||
| Francovich Principles | Directive grants rights, content of rights can be identified, causal link
🗑
|
||||
| Brasserie du Pecheur | {German Beer Quality Laws, foreign could not access market}
🗑
|
||||
| Brasserie (2) | State Liability Successful
🗑
|
||||
| Francovich Non-Compliance Principle | Adds manifestly and gravely disregard limits of discretion
🗑
|
||||
| Francovich Sufficiently Serious Principles | Clear and Precise, Authority Discretion, Intentional, Excusable, Contribution by EU
🗑
|
||||
| Hedley Lomas | {UK export Spain Live Animals, Sufficiently Serious}
🗑
|
||||
| British Telecommunications | Bona Fide, Good Faith breach never sufficiently serious
🗑
|
||||
| Ogieriahki v MJELR | {Nigerian, Ireland, SL Remedy, NO}
🗑
|
||||
| Koebler | {Court no CJEU application, not manifest breach but possible}
🗑
|
||||
| Marshall v Southampton Damages | {Statutory Cap inconsistent with EU effectiveness}
🗑
|
||||
| Levez v TH Jennings | Remedy must be equivalent
🗑
|
||||
| A340 TFEU | Non-Contractual Liability of EU
🗑
|
||||
| A340 Criteria | Intended to confer rights, sufficiently serious, causal link
🗑
|
||||
| A263 | Judicial Review
🗑
|
||||
| A263 Criteria | Reviewable, Standing, Grounds, 2 Months
🗑
|
||||
| Reviewable | Legislative intended to produce legal effects
🗑
|
||||
| IBM v Commission | {Letter, Opening Investigation, Preliminary, Not Reviewable}
🗑
|
||||
| Privileged Applicant | MS, Commission, Parliament, Council
🗑
|
||||
| Quasi-Privileged Applicant | Dispute touches on prerogatives
🗑
|
||||
| Non-Privileged Applicant | Addressed to person, Direct and Individual Concern,
🗑
|
||||
| Direct Concern | Clear line between adoption and effect
🗑
|
||||
| NV International Fruit Company | {Apple License outside EU, no MS Discretion, Direct Concern}
🗑
|
||||
| Differdange | {Steel Subsidies, MS discretion set level, cannot litigate, intervening step}
🗑
|
||||
| Plaumann | {Clementine, Customs Duty}
🗑
|
||||
| Plaumann Test | Certain peculiar attributes, differentiated from all others by virtue of these factors
🗑
|
||||
| Piraiki-Patraiki | Greece, Cotton Import, Open Category, No Individual Concern
🗑
|
||||
| Piraiki Exception | Pre-Existing Contracts
🗑
|
||||
| Greenpeace | {Power Plants, Canary Islands, Impact Assesment, No Individual Concern}
🗑
|
||||
| Court Concerns Standing | Wording of Treaties, Floodgates
🗑
|
||||
| UPA v Council | {Olive Oil, small producers, regulations damage interests}
🗑
|
||||
| AG Jacobs UPA Test | Liable to have a substantial adverse effect on his interests
🗑
|
||||
| Jégo-Quere | {Hake, Increased Hole Net Size}
🗑
|
||||
| Jégo General Court Test | Definite and Immediate Effect
🗑
|
||||
| CJEU Arguments Keep Plaumann | 267 Adequate, National Courts ensure access, MS to amend treaty
🗑
|
||||
| AG Jacobs Counter Plaumann | 267 Serious Shortcomings, National Autonomy Infringed, No Barrier to Reinterpretation
🗑
|
||||
| Lisbon New Standing | Regulatory Act of Direct Concern and does not entail implementing measures
🗑
|
||||
| Inuit v EP | Only applies to things not legislative, failed
🗑
|
||||
| Non-Legislative New Lisbon Standing | Delegated Legislation
🗑
|
||||
| Grounds for Judicial Review | Lack of Competence, Infringement of procedural requirement, Infringement of Treaty, Rule of Law, Misuse of Powers
🗑
|
||||
| Rule of Law Grounds for Judicial Review | Proportionality, Legitimate Expectations, Fundamental Rights, Non-Discrimination
🗑
|
||||
| Inuit v Commission No.2 | Failed to establish ground for JR, does not apply to mere commercial interests
🗑
|
||||
| Mulder | {Milk, Gave Up Scheme, Legitimate Expectation, Voluntary Co-Operation}
🗑
|
||||
| A267 TFEU | Preliminary Ruling Procedure
🗑
|
||||
| May Request 267 | Court Considers Necessary to Deliver Judgment
🗑
|
||||
| Must Request 267 | No possibility of Appeal
🗑
|
||||
| MJELR v O'Connor | {Brexit, EU Arrest}
🗑
|
||||
| Broekmeulen | {Dutch General Medicine Appeal, Court}
🗑
|
||||
| Broekmeulen Factors | Adversarial. Representation, Ruling Final, Independent, Rule of Law, Inter Partes
🗑
|
||||
| Belov | Bulgarian Commission on Discrimination rejected, non-judicial
🗑
|
||||
| Da Costa | Court may give Order of the Court where identical facts
🗑
|
||||
| Order of the Court | Concise Statement of Current Law
🗑
|
||||
| CILFIT | National courts have latitude in non-identical circumstances to interpret EU Law
🗑
|
||||
| Acte-Clair Doctrine | No reasonable doubt as to application of law
🗑
|
||||
| Guza | Different Language Versions can lead to different outcomes, must be considered in acte clair
🗑
|
||||
| Firma Foto-Frost | National Courts cannot disapply EU Legislation
🗑
|
||||
| Novello | CJEU will reject artificial disputes {Wine}
🗑
|
||||
| Meilicke | {Professor, contrived}
🗑
|
||||
| Bio Phillipe | {Likely fictitious, not inconceivable need interpretation}
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Created by:
2022569327989305
Popular Law sets