General PQ Template

Notes:

• If national authorities have acted, EU courts cannot help with that – CJEU can either hear (1) action for annulment of EU law; (2) preliminary reference (validity or interpretation)

• National remedies: specific remedies in certain fields; Francovich

1. Which court?

   1. NB: Not impermissible to go to both, but extra fees w/o being faster

   2. General Court – AFA under Art.263 TFEU

      1. GC cannot issue mandatory interim relief against national authorities (bc not party to proceedings)

   3. National court – PRP under Art.267(b) (validity or interpretation of EU acts)

      1. Even if EU legislation is not unlawful, national authorities may have breached EU law (GC cannot hear this, but Commission could use Art.258)

      2. Disadvantage: must persuade national court to refer (parties have no right to a reference – see AG Jacobs in UPA); on pain of national and Francovich/Kobler sanctions, though, national courts must refer Qs on validity (Foto-Frost)

         1. MUST refer (i) where it considers an EU measure may be invalid, or (ii) courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy in national law (Art.267(3))

         2. MAY refer when court thinks a PRP is necessary to enable it to give judgment, (even if there is a judicial remedy against their decision (Art.267(2))

      3. Other rules

2. Challenge to EU act - Art.267(b) – assessment by CJEU via PRP

   1. Standing rules under Art.263(4) not applicable

   2. Any discernible procedural irregularities OTF?

   3. If imposes burdens on X, needs valid legal basis in the Directive.

   4. Essentially the same grounds of review for validity as Art.263(2) – see below

   5. Legal basis? Note WHICH EU institution has acted – do they have competence in the provision? Only needs to satisfy one, e.g.

      1. Art.114(1) – internal market competence (see Tobacco Advertising II)

         1. [see Art.114 analysis]

      2. Art.153 – worker health, safety, working conditions, social protection

      3. Art.168(2) – cooperation of MS action in human health protection

      4. Art.168(4) – public health (a) blood/organs; (b) veterinary / phytosanitary; (c) medicinal products

      5. Art.192(1) – environmental competence

   6. Substance?

      1. Free movement of… (TFEU)

         1. Art.21 – citizenship (not FM)

         2. Art.34 – goods [see PQ template below]

         3. Art.45 – workers

         4. Art.49 – self-employed

         5. Art.56 – services

      2. Fundamental rights (= condition of lawfulness of EU acts, Kadi II)

         1. [CFR rights]

         2. Art.52(1) CFR – Derogations must be: provided for by law, respect the essence of the right, proportionate (recognised legitimate aim, appropriate, necessary)

3. Challenge to EU act – Art.263 TFEU – assessment by General Court via AFA

   1. Standing – Art.263(4) – three ways to get standing post-Lisbon:

      1. Act addressed to applicant

      2. Act of direct and individual concern

      3. Regulatory act + direct concern + no implementing measure

      1. Post-Codorniu any legally-binding act which is of ‘individual and direct concern’ to the applicant

         1. Individual concern? Plaumann – 3 main paradigms/interpretations (Enchelmaier):

            1. Procedural rights – under the legal basis, any right to participate in the adoption of the EU act? If not, no standing.

            2. Identification in the act – being specifically named in Decision may confer standing (Roquette)

            3. Rights/duties affected by act – EU institution was/ought to have been aware of applicant when adopting act in this sense, ‘addressed’ to C

         2. Direct concern? – Q of causality (Microban)

            1. Did the EU act affect the legal position of the individual?

            2. The EU act will not have ‘caused’ the impact on C if the loss/damage was actually caused by a subsequent exercise of discretion (which can instead be challenged)

         3. Regulatory act?

            1. Generally applicable – Art.290(1) TFEU states a legislative act may delegate to Commission the power to adopt ‘non-legislative acts of general application’ (Inuit, Microban)

         4. IF no ‘individual and direct concern’ applicant can instead challenge the implementing measure:

            1. if implemented by an EU institution, by AFA + plea of illegality

            2. if implemented by MS, by the PRP

      2. NOTE – role of Aarhus Convention if an env law claim

   2. Grounds of review (Art.263(2) TFEU – in practice PRP uses these grounds too)

      1. Lack of competence

      2. Infringement of an essential procedural requirement

      3. Misuse of powers

      4. Infringement of Treaties or any rule relating to their application (including breach of GPs see comment)

   3. Void – Art.264 – CJEU shall declare the impugned act to be void if the challenge is well-founded

4. Challenge to EU act – Art.340 TFEU – EU liability for dmg caused by EU acts

   1. Same as the conditions for Francovich liability under Factortame (No. 3) – see below

5. Challenge to MS act

   1. Direct effect incl. of FM provisions (Van Gend en Loos); VDE of Directives after transposition deadline (Van Duyn, Ratti)

      1. Did national authority comply with the EU legislation?

      2. CFR right = HDE if it has an equivalent GP that has already been recognised as horizontally applicable (Kucukdeveci)

         1. Only if the Charter right is self-sufficient (Bauer and Broβonn)

   2. ‘Reinterpretation’ (Marleasing, van Duyn – see Pfeiffer) or exclusion (see CIA Security, Unilever, Wells – only applies to ‘procedural’ directives)

   3. Francovich – state liability for breach of EU law?

      1. Three requirements (Factortame (No. 3)):

         1. Law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals

         2. Breach is ‘sufficiently serious’ = MS “manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion” [= highest hurdle]

         3. ‘direct causal link’ between breach and dmg

Free movement of goods and services – PQ template

1. Is the area of law harmonised? If so, then the issue is governed by the Directive (Moormann)

   1. In practice, it may be part-harmonised (e.g. Walloon Waste – non-hazardous vs hazardous, only one was harmonised)

2. Is it goods?

   1. Defined broadly (in Walloon Waste, ‘waste’ is a good)

3. Who is imposing restrictions?

   1. Anyone acting on behalf of the state is bound by Art.34

   2. If the state allows a person to do something, it may be the State’s responsibility (Schmidberger)

   3. The state may fail to stop someone from...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our European Law Notes.