Webcasts and weblecture European Union Law
Webcast Basic Notions I
First type of notions:
Discrimination:
An unequal treatment of comparable situations for a specific reason. This
specific reason is forbidden by law. In this course we will focus on the
forbidden grounds of nationality and origin.
Direct discrimination:
if you can identify the ground on which the different treatment is based by
simply reading the wording of the measure under scrutiny. This is barely
found.
Bijvoorbeeld als je 2 pasta soorten hebt van verschillende origine
(Spanje en Italië) dan wordt de Spaanse pasta specifiek verboden.
Indirect discrimination:
If the measure we are looking at does not literally use the origin in its
wording. It doesn’t distinguish according to the origin of a product. Yet, in
real life it has eventually the same effect as the measure required to make
a distinction based on the origin of a product.
Bijvoorbeeld als je 2 pasta soorten hebt, dan zegt de Italiaanse
wetgever dat enkel pasta met zout verkocht mag worden. Dit is in
principe niet verboden, maar in geval de wetgever weet dat enkel
de Italiaanse pastasoort zout bevat en de andere pastasoorten niet,
is het wel verboden. Dit omdat de Spaanse pastasoort dan niet
verkocht kan worden. De regel is niet discriminerend, maar de
gevolgen wel.
Objective differentiation:
Two situations that are treated differently remain different even if we
exclude all forbidden grounds as possible elements that can define these
situations as being different. The different treatment of both is fine
because the two situations are different. So, if the different treaty is based
on objective reasons completely unrelated to the origin of a product of
nationality of a person, then it falls out of the scope of the prohibition of
discrimination.
Bijvoorbeeld de Spaanse en Italiaanse pasta is toegestaan in Italië,
maar de Italiaanse pasta is goedkoper omdat ze een taxs benefit
krijgen van de overheid omdat ze exclusieve zout gebruiken. De
Spaanse krijgt deze benefit niet omdat ze deze speciale zout niet
gebruiken. Je zou zeggen dat het dan lijkt op indirect discrimination,
maar in dit geval legt de Italiaanse overheid de overheid deze
benefit uit en zegt dat de andere landen die ook deze exclusieve
zout gaan gebruiken ook dit voordeel zullen krijgen. Er is in dit geval
dus nog een andere reden om beide pastasoorten anders te
behandelen, namelijk het soort ingrediënt wat leidt tot verschillende
productiekosten.
,Non-discriminatory restriction:
If a measure does not treat two comparable situations differently neither
directly in its wording nor indirectly by affecting one situation less
favourable than the other in its application.
Bijvoorbeeld dat de winkels in Italië gesloten zijn op zondagen. Yet
the application of this measure makes the exercise of one of the EU
cross boarder freedoms less attractive. Dit betekent dat
Nederlandse pasta niet verkocht kan worden in Italië maar wel in
het land waar de productie afspeelt ofwel Nederland zelf. Dit maakt
het voor de bedrijven in NL minder aantrekkelijk om hun pasta te
verkopen in Italië. Maar de regel dat de winkel gesloten zal zijn op
zondagen maakt geen onderscheid tussen of de pasta in Nl is
gemaakt of niet.
All these notions have one thing in common: they all find measures that
violates EU internal market law
,Webcast basic notions II
Exception
Exemption
Justification
Explicit justification grounds
Mandatory requirements
Proportionalitiy
These notions have in common that they define the way measurements violate EU internal
market law.
Proportionality
In order to understand the categories of exception and justification we must take a closer
look at proportionality first.
The meaning
Proportionality means something must be in proportionate in relation to something else. It
therefore describes a relationship between two items:
1. Measure under scrutiny.
2. The benchmark against which the proportionality of the measure is tested.
The benchmark = EU law
- A fundamental freedom or prohibition of discriminations
Lara (a Dutch national) who studies law at EUR university. She moves to Berlin and wants to
start working as a lawyer in Germany. When she tries to register to the German bar
association her request is refused, because she has no German law degree.
This refusal violates the freedom of Lara to establish herself as a lawyer in Germany.
Proportionality in this example inquires whether this refusal is proportionate with the
view of Lara’s free movement rights.
The proportionality test looks into whether there are no other possibilities to realize
the objective - that the measure under review pursues - that restricts the EU free
movement rights lesser.
If yes, the measure under review = disproportionate.
If no, it is proportionate.
Thee step test proportionality.
1. Is the measure suitable to achieve the objective it invokes?
2. Is the measure necessary to attain this objective?
- Are there no less restrictive, but as effective means available?
3. Does even the least restrictive measure not excessively interfere with the EU free
movement rights?
If the answer to even one of this question is no, the measure is disproportionate!
The proportionality test applied to the example.
, The objective of the German requirement is consumer protection. German clients expect
from a German lawyer to know German law when they consult him/her. This is not
guaranteed by a German law degree.
- Therefore, the measure is suitable to achieve the objective.
Is this requirement the least restrictive measure? This is doubtful.
- The exclusion of people with foreign law degrees – without any exception – ignores the
possibility that the person in question might have acquired knowledge about German
law.
- It is therefore imaginable to introduce an individual check before refusing a request.
The German system does not provide for individual checks and is therefore going beyond
what is necessary in order to protect German consumers.
Purpose of this test = to find shades of gray between the interests of a barrierless free
movement right and MS autonomy to define protection standards.
- This requires a case per case approach: MS need to provide explanation.
It matters therefore whether or not a matter is subject of a proportionality test.
Here the distinction between exception and justification comes in play.
Exception = that whatever falls under it is located outside the scope of EU law
- A measure that is covered by an exception can under no circumstances violate EU
internal market law, as it is out of reach.
- Therefore, there is no need to apply a proportionality test; there is nothing to be
proportionate with
For example, if Lara wants to become a German judge she must hold a special German
degree. The difference in this case is the access to a job in the public service.
Art. 45 paragraph 4 TFEU: EU free movement rules shall not apply to employment in
the public service.
Eu law leaves the measure unaffected.
Exemption
Closely related to the exception, is the notion of exemption. You will find this notion
particularly in EU competition law.
If exempted, measure is no violation of EU internal market law.
Justification
In contrast of an exception, we speak of a justification.
Whenever there is a violation of EU law, but the state is allowed to put forward
good reasons for its course of action.
If permitted for justification, a measurement must meet the requirements of the
proportionality test.
When is a measure that violates EU internal market law permitted to be justified?
1) Explicit justification grounds, or
Webcast Basic Notions I
First type of notions:
Discrimination:
An unequal treatment of comparable situations for a specific reason. This
specific reason is forbidden by law. In this course we will focus on the
forbidden grounds of nationality and origin.
Direct discrimination:
if you can identify the ground on which the different treatment is based by
simply reading the wording of the measure under scrutiny. This is barely
found.
Bijvoorbeeld als je 2 pasta soorten hebt van verschillende origine
(Spanje en Italië) dan wordt de Spaanse pasta specifiek verboden.
Indirect discrimination:
If the measure we are looking at does not literally use the origin in its
wording. It doesn’t distinguish according to the origin of a product. Yet, in
real life it has eventually the same effect as the measure required to make
a distinction based on the origin of a product.
Bijvoorbeeld als je 2 pasta soorten hebt, dan zegt de Italiaanse
wetgever dat enkel pasta met zout verkocht mag worden. Dit is in
principe niet verboden, maar in geval de wetgever weet dat enkel
de Italiaanse pastasoort zout bevat en de andere pastasoorten niet,
is het wel verboden. Dit omdat de Spaanse pastasoort dan niet
verkocht kan worden. De regel is niet discriminerend, maar de
gevolgen wel.
Objective differentiation:
Two situations that are treated differently remain different even if we
exclude all forbidden grounds as possible elements that can define these
situations as being different. The different treatment of both is fine
because the two situations are different. So, if the different treaty is based
on objective reasons completely unrelated to the origin of a product of
nationality of a person, then it falls out of the scope of the prohibition of
discrimination.
Bijvoorbeeld de Spaanse en Italiaanse pasta is toegestaan in Italië,
maar de Italiaanse pasta is goedkoper omdat ze een taxs benefit
krijgen van de overheid omdat ze exclusieve zout gebruiken. De
Spaanse krijgt deze benefit niet omdat ze deze speciale zout niet
gebruiken. Je zou zeggen dat het dan lijkt op indirect discrimination,
maar in dit geval legt de Italiaanse overheid de overheid deze
benefit uit en zegt dat de andere landen die ook deze exclusieve
zout gaan gebruiken ook dit voordeel zullen krijgen. Er is in dit geval
dus nog een andere reden om beide pastasoorten anders te
behandelen, namelijk het soort ingrediënt wat leidt tot verschillende
productiekosten.
,Non-discriminatory restriction:
If a measure does not treat two comparable situations differently neither
directly in its wording nor indirectly by affecting one situation less
favourable than the other in its application.
Bijvoorbeeld dat de winkels in Italië gesloten zijn op zondagen. Yet
the application of this measure makes the exercise of one of the EU
cross boarder freedoms less attractive. Dit betekent dat
Nederlandse pasta niet verkocht kan worden in Italië maar wel in
het land waar de productie afspeelt ofwel Nederland zelf. Dit maakt
het voor de bedrijven in NL minder aantrekkelijk om hun pasta te
verkopen in Italië. Maar de regel dat de winkel gesloten zal zijn op
zondagen maakt geen onderscheid tussen of de pasta in Nl is
gemaakt of niet.
All these notions have one thing in common: they all find measures that
violates EU internal market law
,Webcast basic notions II
Exception
Exemption
Justification
Explicit justification grounds
Mandatory requirements
Proportionalitiy
These notions have in common that they define the way measurements violate EU internal
market law.
Proportionality
In order to understand the categories of exception and justification we must take a closer
look at proportionality first.
The meaning
Proportionality means something must be in proportionate in relation to something else. It
therefore describes a relationship between two items:
1. Measure under scrutiny.
2. The benchmark against which the proportionality of the measure is tested.
The benchmark = EU law
- A fundamental freedom or prohibition of discriminations
Lara (a Dutch national) who studies law at EUR university. She moves to Berlin and wants to
start working as a lawyer in Germany. When she tries to register to the German bar
association her request is refused, because she has no German law degree.
This refusal violates the freedom of Lara to establish herself as a lawyer in Germany.
Proportionality in this example inquires whether this refusal is proportionate with the
view of Lara’s free movement rights.
The proportionality test looks into whether there are no other possibilities to realize
the objective - that the measure under review pursues - that restricts the EU free
movement rights lesser.
If yes, the measure under review = disproportionate.
If no, it is proportionate.
Thee step test proportionality.
1. Is the measure suitable to achieve the objective it invokes?
2. Is the measure necessary to attain this objective?
- Are there no less restrictive, but as effective means available?
3. Does even the least restrictive measure not excessively interfere with the EU free
movement rights?
If the answer to even one of this question is no, the measure is disproportionate!
The proportionality test applied to the example.
, The objective of the German requirement is consumer protection. German clients expect
from a German lawyer to know German law when they consult him/her. This is not
guaranteed by a German law degree.
- Therefore, the measure is suitable to achieve the objective.
Is this requirement the least restrictive measure? This is doubtful.
- The exclusion of people with foreign law degrees – without any exception – ignores the
possibility that the person in question might have acquired knowledge about German
law.
- It is therefore imaginable to introduce an individual check before refusing a request.
The German system does not provide for individual checks and is therefore going beyond
what is necessary in order to protect German consumers.
Purpose of this test = to find shades of gray between the interests of a barrierless free
movement right and MS autonomy to define protection standards.
- This requires a case per case approach: MS need to provide explanation.
It matters therefore whether or not a matter is subject of a proportionality test.
Here the distinction between exception and justification comes in play.
Exception = that whatever falls under it is located outside the scope of EU law
- A measure that is covered by an exception can under no circumstances violate EU
internal market law, as it is out of reach.
- Therefore, there is no need to apply a proportionality test; there is nothing to be
proportionate with
For example, if Lara wants to become a German judge she must hold a special German
degree. The difference in this case is the access to a job in the public service.
Art. 45 paragraph 4 TFEU: EU free movement rules shall not apply to employment in
the public service.
Eu law leaves the measure unaffected.
Exemption
Closely related to the exception, is the notion of exemption. You will find this notion
particularly in EU competition law.
If exempted, measure is no violation of EU internal market law.
Justification
In contrast of an exception, we speak of a justification.
Whenever there is a violation of EU law, but the state is allowed to put forward
good reasons for its course of action.
If permitted for justification, a measurement must meet the requirements of the
proportionality test.
When is a measure that violates EU internal market law permitted to be justified?
1) Explicit justification grounds, or
