GDL Law Notes GDL EU Law Notes
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our GDL EU Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
_______________________________________________________
Direct Effect
Treaty Articles
The ‘new legal order’ which encompasses not only states but the citizens within those states:
Van Gend en Loos
Customs duties were imposed antagonistic to Art 30 TFEU – could this provision be effective in a national court?
Held: direct effect possible & flowing from the objective of the treaty though not necessarily its exact wordings
“according to the spirit, the general scheme and the wording of the Treaty” Art 30 produces direct effects and creates enforceable individual rights”
Established direct effect possible where:
Clear and unconditional prohibition
Requiring no legislative intervention by the MS
Here it was more likely to be directly effective because it was a negative obligation, rather than positive one
NB: judgment = narrow & vague as to the general application of direct effect
Reyners v Belgium
Art 51 TFEU ‘official authority’ argued to extend to the legal profession as an exemption from the free movement of services Art 56 TFEU
Held: Art 51 directly effective despite the fact directives had not been adopted
“obligation to attain a precise result, the fulfilment of which...(was) not dependent on the implementation of a programme of progressive measures” i.e. directives
Defrenne v Sabena
Female air stewardesses retirement age -> alleged in breach of Art 157(1) TFEU right to equal pay
Held: provision had general purpose to stop discrimination; also had a direct purpose to stop discrimination in individual cases. Such provisions may be directly enforceable where they transfer a right to a class of individuals
HORIZONTAL EFFECT: this case dealt with the horizontal effectiveness of article provisions (Sabena pointed out that it was not an emanation of the state, and the provision was directed towards states)
Held: the wording of the provision would not preclude private liability as the objective is to enable MS to uphold rights in a court of law – this necessitates horizontal effect
“Art [157] is mandatory in nature...extends to all agreements which are intended to regulate paid labour collectively, as well as to contracts between individuals”
Regulations
Leonesio v Italian Ministry of Agriculture: a regulation is capable of direct effect if it is clear & unconditional -> it must be applied by the courts even if there is conflicting domestic legislation
Decisions
Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein: the wording of Art 288 does not preclude decisions giving rise to direct effects
International Agreements
Kupferberg: CoJ notes the difference between international & EU obligations -> international agreements may only be directly effective where:
Clear & precise
The determination of this question must be inkeeping with the “object and purpose” of the agreement
Directives:
Vertical Direct Effect
Art 288 TFEU “‘A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods’.
A directive is designed to impose duties on states, not individuals, so it would be inappropriate to make it directly applicable i.e. without implementation by MS
HOWEVER the “dangerously elastic quality of directives” (F Mancini) has given rise to some judicial activism in ensuring that Community law is implemented in a uniform fashion with adequate protection of individual rights
Direct effect will be sought when:
CoJ will not take up case for direct enforcement
Complainant seeks damages through state liability
To defend directly effective provisions
Adeneler 2006
Directive transposed too late. When did the interpretative duty run from?
Held: from the time it ought to have been transposed. Until that time there was a more limited obligation to interpret domestic law in a non-antagonistic way. This applies to courts
“the MS to which it is addressed must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the attainment of the result prescribed by it…in this connection it is immaterial whether or not the provision…has been adopted” at 121
Van Duyn
Dutch woman accepted job with scientologist group & denied entry by government who were discouraging scientology – infringement of Art 45(3) TFEU free movement of workers – relied on Free Movement of Worker Directive which gave the public policy exception which was based ‘on personal conduct’
Held: the personal conduct provision was directly effective – however they found in this case that her action was personal conduct, not an association
“whether the nature, general scheme and wording of the provision in question are capable of having direct effects”
Established direct effect because:
If regulations are directly applicable (Art 249 EC Treaty) they have direct effect
Other categories may also have direct effect
Binding effect of directives under Art 288 would mean it would be inappropriate to exclude
Effectiveness would be compromised if individuals could not rely on it
Legal certainty requires that a person should be able to rely on legislative acts of the EU
Pescatore – motivated by “une certain idée de L’Europe...and not arguments based on the legal technicalities of the matter”
Ratti (1)
Directive about packaging & labelling of solvents
Held: after the expiration of implementation for a directive, the defaulting MS must disapply its internal law if it is conflict
Ratti (2)
Could a directive be directly effective before expiration of implementation date?
Held: until the expiration the MS “remains free in that field” – this is because directives impose duties on states & direct effect before expiration of implementation date would remove this duty. Also the principle of legitimate expectation is not engaged as pre-implementation there is no such thing.
Justification:
Effectiveness: Nederlanse Ondernemingen: “the useful effect of such an act would be weakened”
...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL EU Law Notes.
A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through applications from top students and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor". In short these are what we believe to be the strongest set of GDL notes available in the UK this year. This collection of GDL notes is fully updated for recent exams, also making them the most up-to-date GDL study materials ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started