Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
37 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Treaty of Rome
|
Created the EEC
|
|
|
Single Europe Act (SEA)
|
1 Jul 1987 increased power of European parliament to achieve internal market by 1992.
|
|
|
Treaty of the European Union (aka Maastricht Treaty)
|
created the EU came into force on 1 Novemeber 1993. Creation of economic and monetary union. Further increases EC parliament powers. Union citizenship concept created.
|
|
|
Amsterdam Treaty
|
1 May 1999. increased union power. Renumerated treaty articles.
|
|
|
Nice Treaty
|
1 Feb 2003. Altered rules on compensation to allow for enlargement. Increased qualified majority voting. Further extended use of co-decision.
|
|
|
Treaty of Lisbon
|
remake of the attempted European Constitution from 2005.
Will: • Rename co-decision ‘ordinary legislative procedure’ and all others ‘special legislative procedures’ |
|
|
Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft
|
Established rules on determining whether a court/tribunal is valid to consult ECJ.
|
|
|
CILFIT
|
Ruling from ECJ not necessary if:
• A question of interpretation of EC law raised before national court is not relevant to conclusion of case. • Previous decisions of the ECJ have already dealt with that point of EC law • Obvious point of law |
|
|
Costa v ENEL
|
highest national court must appeal to ECJ on point of EC law.
|
|
|
R v International Stock Exchange
|
UK courts should refer to ECJ if:
• EC law critical to outcome • Unless answer in confidence from court • ECJ experts on EC law |
|
|
Trinity Mirror plc v Customs
|
UK courts should exercise greater restraint in referring to ECJ.
|
|
|
Foglia v Novella
|
Refusal of ECJ in absence of genuine dispute.
|
|
|
Telemarsicabruzzo v Circostel
|
Refusal of ECJ when insufficient information about factual background to case or relevant provisions of national law
|
|
|
Koebler v Austria
|
Member state can be sued for failure to refer EC law in mandatory reporting court.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of the ECJ
|
- Preliminary Rulings (via Art 234 from national courts)
- Direct actions against community institutions for breach of EC law - Direct action against MSs for breach of EC law (Art 226 and 227) |
|
|
Art 226
|
Commission has right to bring MS before ECJ for failure to fulfill its Treaty obligations
|
|
|
Art 227
|
One MS can bring actions against another MS for treaty obligation failure.
|
|
|
Art 228
|
ECJ, at the request of the commission, can impose a lump sum or penalty payment on a MS that disobeys its judgment.
|
|
|
ECJ jurisdiction according to Art 234(1)
|
(a) interpretation of EC treaty and secondary legislation and the Euro Central Bank.
(b) the validity of secondary legislation |
|
|
Art 234(2)
|
If question on treaty interpretation is raise3d before any national court or tribunal they may refer the question to the ECJ.
|
|
|
Art 234 (3)
|
If National Court is one 'against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law' then they must refer to the ECJ on any treaty interpretation questions.
|
|
|
Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft
|
Listed factors for determining if a body is a 'court or tribunal' for the purposes of making an Art 234 reference.
|
|
|
Dorsch factors
|
a. whether the body is established by law
b. whether it is permanent c. whether its jurisdiction is compulsory d. whether its procedure is inter parties (ie had hearings where all parties could be present and heard) e. whether it applies rules of law f. whether it is independent |
|
|
CILFIT srl v Ministro della Sanita
|
Laid down criteria for determining whether or not a ruling is necessary.
|
|
|
CILFIT criteria
|
A decision on a question of EC law isn't necessary if one of the following applies:
A) EC law not relevant to the conclusion of the case B) Previous decision of the ECJ has dealt with the same point of law C) Correct application of community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to the manner in which the question raised is to be resolved. |
|
|
Costa v ENEL
|
Court of mandatory jurisdiction defined as those 'against whose decisions there is no remedy under national law' in Art 234. Costa confirmed the ECJ's view that this means the highest court of the national system for that particular type of case.
|
|
|
References are 'particularly useful' where there is a...
|
new question of interpretation of general interest for the uniform application of EC law.
|
|
|
Rheinmuelen-Dusseldorf v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle fur Getreide und Futtermittel (No1)
|
A high national court can't prevent a lower national court making a reference if it chooses to do so.
|
|
|
Foto-Frost v Hauptsollamt Lubeck-Ost
|
A national court can't declare a peice of EC law invalid
|
|
|
Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association v Ireland
|
It is up to national courts to decide at what stage of the national proceedings to make a reference.
|
|
|
R v International Stock Exchange, ex p Else Ltd
|
Lord Bingham (C of A) urged British courts normally to exercise their discretion in favour of referring where the auestion of EC law was critical tot he out come of the case.
|
|
|
Trinity Mirror Plc
|
C of A (amending ex p Else) suggested the national courts should show 'a greater measure of self-restraint' in deciding whether to make references to the ECJ.
|
|
|
Foglia v Novello
|
No reference to ECJ in the absence of a genuine dispute
|
|
|
Kobler v Austria
|
State can be sued for failure to make a reference when required.
|
|
|
Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen
|
Established that treaty articles have veritcal direct effect if they meet criteria.
|
|
|
Van Gend Criteria
|
For a treaty article to be directly effective it must be:
- sufficiently clear and precise, - unconditional, and - leave no room for the exercise of discretion in implementation on the part of MSs or Community institutions. |
|
|
Defrenne v SABENA
|
Horizontal direct effect of treaty articles if Van Gend satisfied.
|
