Difference between unconditional, sufficiently clear and mandatory
1. Unconditional- the involvement of MS in applying the law is not required
2. Sufficiently clear- there are not vague terms in the measure
3. Mandatory in itself- no derogation is allowed
Unconditionality for directives mean that the core obligation of the directive should not require
implementation from MS
WEEK 1
Costa v. ENEL(para 593 -594)
● To what extent national law may prevail over community law
● This law established that national law can never prevail over EU law(community law at
the time)
● Page 593 and 594 of the judgement- law stemming from the treaty, and also secondary
law(regulations, directives, etc.) cannot be overridden by national provisions however
framed
Van Gend & Loos(the judgement document does not contain paragraph numbers)
● EEC treaty prohibited custom duties and similar obstacles to free movement of goods
between 6 member states
● Direct effect- doctrine developed starting from this judgment- following conditions
need to be met for a provision to have direct effect
1. Sufficiently clear
2. Unconditional
Deferenne II(para 31, 34, 39)
● Deferenne was a Belgian lady fired by her employer because there was a policy that
they would be fired by the time they hit 40- this was an age discrimination case
○ At the time there was no EU legislation on anti-age discrimination
○ Only the EEC treaty was there-119 EEC
● This case established direct horizontal effect for community law- conditions for direct
horizontal effect are as follows-
1. Obligation must be sufficiently clear and unconditional(from VGL)
2. Mandatory in nature- means compulsory or obligatory
3. Applicable between individuals(suitable to be applied in legal rs b/w individuals)
*one and three are more important than 2
● Obligation has to be clear and unconditional(Van Gend and Loos) then we move to
requirement being suitable to be applied in rs between individuals- being mandatory in
nature is less strict and is like being unconditional so not always necessary to consider
WEEK 2
Council v Commission(para 64, 74, 75, 76, 83)
● The commission proposed legislation for granting micro-financial assistance to third
countries, which contained an act conferring implementation powers to itself
, ● Commission later withdrew this proposal, which is different from alteration and Council
sought annulment of this decision of the Commission to withdraw its proposal
● First requirement of withdrawal in paragraph 74, second requirement in paragraph 76
WEEK 3
Chernobyl(para 9, 12, 17, 18)
● Ep brought actions for annulment of council regulations (Euratom) laying down maximum
permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and the feedingstuffs following
a case of radiological emergency by stating that the legal basis was inappropriate,
among three pleas
● Consideration 9 states that the choice of legal basis must not depend simply on the
convictions of the institution as to the objective pursued but must also be based on
objective factors which are amenable to judicial review
● Objective factors must include the aim and content of the measure
Ireland v European Parliament and Council(para 60, 63, 71, 85)
● Ireland claimed the legal basis was inappropriate since the legal basis chosen concerns
the functioning of internal market and Ireland claimed that the center should have been
the protection from crime including terrorism
● CJEU first stated the rule to be applied(from above)-
○ The reasoning for the legal basis must be based on objective factors and these
objective factors must involve the aim and content of the measure and can be
subject to judicial review- what is the main purpose of the act
● The EU may use Article 114 as legal basis where there are disparities between the
MS laws and where these disparities could have a direct impact on the functioning
of the internal market
Tobacco Advertising(para 84, 99, 114)
● Court restates rule given and specifies rule further- a mere finding of disparities and
abstract risk of obstacles is not sufficient to justify choice of legal basis
WEEK 4
Leonesio(para 5, 6, 18, 21, 22, 23)
● EU implemented several regulations with an aim to reduce the output of milk by farmers.
In return, if farmers were to abandon their cows, they would receive compensation from
the states.
● Leonesio decided to give some of his cows and thought Italy would compensate him.
However, Italy had introduced several national laws after this regulation which refused
compensation which was promised under the regulation.
● When national court referred the case to the CJEU, it stated- regulations have direct
effect and they can produce individual rights, these rights must be protected by national
courts(obviously if they comply with van gend & loos conditions). MS cannot deviate
from regulations by implementing national laws that contravene parts of the
regulation.
1. Unconditional- the involvement of MS in applying the law is not required
2. Sufficiently clear- there are not vague terms in the measure
3. Mandatory in itself- no derogation is allowed
Unconditionality for directives mean that the core obligation of the directive should not require
implementation from MS
WEEK 1
Costa v. ENEL(para 593 -594)
● To what extent national law may prevail over community law
● This law established that national law can never prevail over EU law(community law at
the time)
● Page 593 and 594 of the judgement- law stemming from the treaty, and also secondary
law(regulations, directives, etc.) cannot be overridden by national provisions however
framed
Van Gend & Loos(the judgement document does not contain paragraph numbers)
● EEC treaty prohibited custom duties and similar obstacles to free movement of goods
between 6 member states
● Direct effect- doctrine developed starting from this judgment- following conditions
need to be met for a provision to have direct effect
1. Sufficiently clear
2. Unconditional
Deferenne II(para 31, 34, 39)
● Deferenne was a Belgian lady fired by her employer because there was a policy that
they would be fired by the time they hit 40- this was an age discrimination case
○ At the time there was no EU legislation on anti-age discrimination
○ Only the EEC treaty was there-119 EEC
● This case established direct horizontal effect for community law- conditions for direct
horizontal effect are as follows-
1. Obligation must be sufficiently clear and unconditional(from VGL)
2. Mandatory in nature- means compulsory or obligatory
3. Applicable between individuals(suitable to be applied in legal rs b/w individuals)
*one and three are more important than 2
● Obligation has to be clear and unconditional(Van Gend and Loos) then we move to
requirement being suitable to be applied in rs between individuals- being mandatory in
nature is less strict and is like being unconditional so not always necessary to consider
WEEK 2
Council v Commission(para 64, 74, 75, 76, 83)
● The commission proposed legislation for granting micro-financial assistance to third
countries, which contained an act conferring implementation powers to itself
, ● Commission later withdrew this proposal, which is different from alteration and Council
sought annulment of this decision of the Commission to withdraw its proposal
● First requirement of withdrawal in paragraph 74, second requirement in paragraph 76
WEEK 3
Chernobyl(para 9, 12, 17, 18)
● Ep brought actions for annulment of council regulations (Euratom) laying down maximum
permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and the feedingstuffs following
a case of radiological emergency by stating that the legal basis was inappropriate,
among three pleas
● Consideration 9 states that the choice of legal basis must not depend simply on the
convictions of the institution as to the objective pursued but must also be based on
objective factors which are amenable to judicial review
● Objective factors must include the aim and content of the measure
Ireland v European Parliament and Council(para 60, 63, 71, 85)
● Ireland claimed the legal basis was inappropriate since the legal basis chosen concerns
the functioning of internal market and Ireland claimed that the center should have been
the protection from crime including terrorism
● CJEU first stated the rule to be applied(from above)-
○ The reasoning for the legal basis must be based on objective factors and these
objective factors must involve the aim and content of the measure and can be
subject to judicial review- what is the main purpose of the act
● The EU may use Article 114 as legal basis where there are disparities between the
MS laws and where these disparities could have a direct impact on the functioning
of the internal market
Tobacco Advertising(para 84, 99, 114)
● Court restates rule given and specifies rule further- a mere finding of disparities and
abstract risk of obstacles is not sufficient to justify choice of legal basis
WEEK 4
Leonesio(para 5, 6, 18, 21, 22, 23)
● EU implemented several regulations with an aim to reduce the output of milk by farmers.
In return, if farmers were to abandon their cows, they would receive compensation from
the states.
● Leonesio decided to give some of his cows and thought Italy would compensate him.
However, Italy had introduced several national laws after this regulation which refused
compensation which was promised under the regulation.
● When national court referred the case to the CJEU, it stated- regulations have direct
effect and they can produce individual rights, these rights must be protected by national
courts(obviously if they comply with van gend & loos conditions). MS cannot deviate
from regulations by implementing national laws that contravene parts of the
regulation.
