Eu Case Law

Front 1

Commission v Council (ERTA)

Back 1

There are, besides the explicit, implied competences

Front 2

Spain v Commission [2002]

Back 2

Clarifies and backs up article 296 TFEU

Front 3

Commission v Netherlands [2001]

Back 3

Advocate General Tizzano sets out how directives must be implemented

Front 4

Oakley v Animal

Back 4

The fact that the UK rephrases EU law is criticized

Front 5

Van Gend en Loos

Back 5

Sets out the direct effect of EU law

Front 6

van Duyn

Back 6

Sets out the direct effect of directives

Front 7

Marshall v Southampton

Back 7

Sets out that directives are only vertically directly effective

Front 8

Simmenthal

Back 8

Summarizes the principles of direct effect and primacy of EU law up and called it the "Union legal order". It also establishes the duty for national courts to ensure the supremacy of EU law

Front 9

Cost v ENEL

Back 9

Establishes the supremacy of EU law

Front 10

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft

Back 10

All national rules, irrespective of their legal status, must be overruled by EU law.

Front 11

Colson & Kamann v Land Nordreihn-Westfalen

Back 11

Imposes a duty on the national courts a duty to interpret law in the light if the wording and purpose of an EU directive

Front 12

Marleasing

Back 12

Sets out that the interpretative obligation applies horizontally, and it applies even where national legislation predates the directive.

Front 13

Kolpinghuis Nijmegen

Back 13

Sets out that in the Union there shall be legal certainty, non-retroacticity and no interpretation against the law.

Front 14

Francovich and Bonicafi v Italy

Back 14

Sets out that states can be liable to its citizens if it does not fulfill its obligations under article 288 TFEU

Front 15

Brasserie du Pecheur v Germany

Back 15

Affirmed Francovich and established that the breach on the side of the state must be sufficiently serious

Front 16

Commission v Italy [1969]

Back 16

It does not matter how small the charge is, any charge on imports are illegal.

Front 17

Ford Espana v Spain and Bauhuis v Netherlands

Back 17

Sets out that there only may be a charge on imports if it was for a duty purely beneficial for the exporter or if the state was carrying out an inspection ordered by the union. Even then they may only collect the actual cost.

Front 18

Humbolt v Directeur de Services Fiscaux

Back 18

Forbids the discrimination of foreign goods through taxation under article 110 TFEU, even if there technically is an equal tax for foreign and national goods, but the national goods are still benefiting.

Front 19

Commission v UK [1983]

Back 19

It is illegal to impose a tax to protect national goods. (Beer and wine tax)

Front 20

Dassonville

Back 20

All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions’

Front 21

Cassis du Dijon

Back 21

Sets out that if a MEQR is indistinctly applicable then it can be justified by a few more things. Public interest, preserving of nature, etc. This is not a closed list

Front 22

Keck

Back 22

Sets out that selling arrangements don't fall under article 34 TFEU

Front 23

Conegate v HM Customs and Excise

Back 23

UK prevented the importation of blow up dolls and tried to justified under Cassis the Dijon because it was against public morality. But because there were no measures in place in the UK this was not allowed

Front 24

Bluhme

Back 24

The danish bee case. There is no minimal exception under article 34 TFEU

Front 25

Groenveld

Back 25

Sets out that under article 35 TFEU it is illegal to prevent exports in order to boost the national economy

Front 26

Kurz v Land Baden-Wuerthenberg

Back 26

Sets out who is a worker

Front 27

Netherlands v Reed

Back 27

Sets out that foreign workers and home nationals should be treated the same, including social benefits

Front 28

Belgian Railways

Back 28

Narrows down and explains what is a worker in a public office

Front 29

Bosman

Back 29

Sets out the horizontal effect of article 45 TFEU

Front 30

R v Immigration Appeal & Singh

Back 30

Sets out and slightly changes the wholly internal rule for article 45. After having lived in another member state you can use article 45 against your own member state.

Front 31

Gebhard

Back 31

Sets out the differences between establishments and services. It also deals with a lawyer trying to work in another member state.

Front 32

Thieffry

Back 32

Sets out the recognition of foreign professional qualifications

Front 33

Luisi & Carbone v Ministere Del Tresoro

Back 33

Tourism was defined as a service

Front 34

Martinez Sala

Back 34

Women living in Germany but not working. Germany let's her stay. She has a child but the state refuses to pay child support. ECJ establishes that if she's allowed to stay she has a right to child support because of her citizenship

Front 35

Grzelczyk

Back 35

Student got his social benefits, while stuying in another member stae, because he was a union citizen.

Front 36

Baumbast

Back 36

The children were in the UK, with their 3rd country parents. The children were not economically active, but they are EU citizens. It was ruled that the children had the right of residence, as long as they or their parents can sustain themselves, as a result the parents were allowed to stay to ensure support.

Front 37

Zhu and Chen

Back 37

Parents were allowed to stay to support child

Front 38

Ruiz Zambrano

Back 38

A Columbia refugee in Belgium had 2 Belgium kids. He applied for residence and various benefits. The problem here is that it was a wholly internal matter. The court said that they could stay and did not address the wholly internal rule (reverse discrimination). It was not clear whether that rule still applied.

Front 39

McCarthy

Back 39

The court argued that she would be entitled to her rights, but she would not gain anything because she is already a UK citizen. This is a very strange because clearly she would gain something. She could not bring her Jamaican husband in

Front 40

Dereci

Back 40

Yugoslavs in Austria were about to be chucked out. They had Austrian spouses and tried to rely in 2004/38, the ECJ applied McCarthy, although again there were clear disadvantages.

Front 41

Viking Lines

Back 41

The ECJ acknowledges the need to balance economy with social interests

Front 42

Defrenne v SABENA

Back 42

Sets out the Unions double aim in economic and social legislation and recognizes that social legislation is important. It also set out that article 157 is vertically and horizontally directly effective.

Front 43

Foto Frost

Back 43

Only the ECJ can declare EU law invalid