European Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB EU law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best European Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest resul...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our European Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Functions
Development of EU law (direct effect, supremacy)
Maintenance of institutional balance
Enhancement of individuals’ interests (obl. to refer for court against whose decision there’s no nat. remedy)
Legal integration – uniformity/consistency of EU law
ECJ: “veritable cornerstone of the operation of internal market” – plays a fundamental role in ensuring Treaty law retains its Comm. Character w/a view to guaranteeing EC law has same effect in all MS.
Types of questions referred
Treaty interpretation (Art 267 (1)(a))
used to make judgments on supremacy & DE
ECJ merely interprets Treaty – no judgment on nat. law validity
If incompatibility found, obl. on nat. court to redress situation
Validity & interpretation of EU institutions, bodies etc. acts (Art 267(1)(b))
Chalmers: 2 striking features
nat. courts monopoly over disputes involving points of EU law to be decided on nat. law, facts & application of EU law
Nat. courts act as gatekeepers to ECJ – no direct right of access to private parties
ECJ: 3 stages of EU legal order
EU is autonomous legal order
Requiring MS courts to interpret EU law uniformly
By providing for direct relation b/w MS courts and ECJ, Art 267 enables this uniformity
Who can refer
Body or tribunal – determined by ECJ on the basis of broad definition: factors
established by law
compulsory jurisdiction
decisions of judicial, not admin, nature
independence
external – no intervention/pressure liable to jeopardise judgment
internal – impartiality
Complex application
Ref can be made only if there’s a pending case b/f nat. court which leads to decision of judicial nature
Cartesio – ref couldn’t be made b/c court was discharging admin function which didn’t resolve dispute
In the interest of uniformity, ECJ can rule on issues of validity & interpretation arising out of procedure of bodies to which govt. has assigned some adjudicatory function
Broekmeulen– Dutch Appeals Comm. hearing appeals from a body resp. for admission of docs
Chalmers: rationale: any body deciding on EU law rights should be able to refer – if not, Cs would have to challenge through another body, adding to expense & delay, dis-incentivising parties from referral but could open floodgates whereby undertrained actors would overload the court.
AG Colomer: definition is too wide; the strategy behind 267 was to create a conversation b/w ECJ & nat. courts – independent parts of executive not intended to be part of it. Practical consequence: allows bodies w/no legal training to formulate ref + admin actors have a chance to disrupt domestic judicial hierarchy and system of precedent by referring something they disagree with
With discretion/ obligation to refer
Art 267(2) – discretion (any court or tribunal)
Art 267(3) – court/tr. against whose decision there’s no remedy in nat. law(unless CILFIT satisfied/issue previously decided)
What bodies are covered?
abstract theory – bodies whose decisions are never subject to appeal
concrete theory – bodies whose decisions aren’t subject to appeal in that case (Costa v ENEL)
Costa v ENEL – magistrate, whose decisions were normally subject to appeal, could refer to ECJ b/c in that case sum of money too low for appeal to be made in nat. law.
somewhat distorting to nat. judicial hierarchy – lower court can refer even in the face of decision by a higher court ...
NB: nat. court not obliged to raise matters of EU law on own volition but it can’t be prevented from doing so by a rule of national law
NB: no obl. for nat. court/tr. to refer just b/c parties ask for it
Precedent System
Development of precedent:
modified the original conception of horizontal & bilateral relationship b/w MS & ECJ
shifted it to vertical hierarchy b/w ECJ & national courts
Instances where nat. court may conclude it doesn’t need to refer
ECJ has already resolved the issue
Refer only where quest. raises new argument/factor – if not, ECJ will restate substance of earlier judgment
Courts/tribunals with obligation to refer have the same discretion as any other nat. court to determine if decision is necessary for it to give judgment – if not, it doesn’t have to refer
CILFIT – Italian court’s ref.; ECJ: obl. to refer is not unconditional but premised on existence of reasonable doubt as to interpretation + recourse to ECJ being necessary for decision in the case
There’s no doubt as to EU measure’s validity
System of precedent – multilateral effect of court rulings (can be relied on across MS)
Decision isn’t necessary for deciding that case
Acteclair doctrine applies
Nat. court feels issue is clear; i.e.
equally obvious to other MS courts & ECJ
so obvious that leaves no scope for reasonable doubt
Assess a) & b) on the basis of characteristic features of EU law + difficulties of interpretation
CILFIT test
Legislation drafted in several languages – all equally authentic
Peculiar terminology
Possibility of same terms having different meanings in EU law & nat. law
Interpret in light of EU law as a whole, having regard to objectives + evolution
NB: CILFIT conditions are too restrictive – nat. courts should have more discretion.
AG Jacobs: nat. judges shouldn’t have to consider all language versions – not realistic/feasible! CILFIT should apply in commonsensical way, so that court can really determine if prel. ref. is worth the burden
Mancini & Keeling:ECJ, recognising it can’t coerce nat. courts, conceded something to professional/national pride of judges but then restricted circumstances to cases so rare that ECJ’s authority remains intact. Clear objective – by granting MS courts lawfully power to do that which they could do unlawfully + subjecting it to strict conditions it would induce them to wilfully engage in the mechanism of judicial co-op provided by Treaty
Rasmussen: CILFIT II should give back initiative to MS judges, trusting them to solve far more quest. of interpretation...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our European Law Notes.
European Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB EU law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best European Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highest resul...
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