European Union Law – An Overview Per Week
Week 1 – General Aspects
1. Van Gend & Loos
a. Issue: A private company (van Gend & Loos) was charged a higher customer
duty for importing goods from other MS due to change Dutch Law. Can the
company rely directly on ART12 EEC in national court to challenge duty as
being unlawful?
b. Rule: ART12 EEC prohibits MS’s from changing customer duties between
themselves. For a treaty to have direct effect, must be:
i. Clear;
ii. Unconditional;
iii. Not require further implementation.
c. Application: ECJ found ART12 to be sufficiently clear/unconditional;
individuals and companies can invoke provisions directly.
d. Conclusion: ART12 EEC has direct effect, allowing company to challenge duty
to Dutch court. Case established principle of direct effect.
2. Costa-ENEL
a. Issue: Costa (Italian national) unhappy nationalisation Italian electricity sector
(ENEL). Can Italian national law nationalising electricity sector lawfully
override EEC Treaty Provisions, to which they agreed? National law override?
b. Rule: ART267 TFEU establishes EU has supremacy over national law in case
of conflict.
c. Application: ECJ ruled Italy’s nationalisation in conflict with EU law, and
therefor EU law prevails.
d. Conclusion: EU law has supremacy over national law, and Italy’s
nationalisation law cannot overrule EU law. Principle of supremacy of EU law.
Week 2 – Institutions & Competences of the EU, Procedures before
the CJEU
1. Cilfit
a. Issue: The issue in the case was whether the Italian Court of Cassation was
required to refer a question of EU law to the European Court of Justice
(CJEU), despite the Ministry of Health arguing that the interpretation was
obvious and no further reference was needed.
b. Rule: under ART267, national courts must refer EU law questions to CJEU
except if law is clear (‘acte clair’), irrelevant, or if court is highest national
court.
c. Application: Italian court found EU law clear and unambiguous, applying the
‘acte clair’ doctrine and deciding no referral was needed.
d. Conclusion: national courts not required to refer questions to CJEU if ‘acte
clair’
, Week 3 – Decision Making in the EU, Sources of EU Law and State
Liability
1. Faccini Dori
a. Issue: miss Dori wanted to cancel ‘doorstep selling’ right granted by EU
directive, in a situation where Italy failed to implement the directive into
national law.
b. Rule: ART288 TFEU states directives are only binding to MS’s and do not
have horizontal effect (no private individuals). State liability (Francovich
principle) could make MS compensate individual if MS failed to implement
within time-frame.
c. Application: CJEU ruled in the absence of national implementation Miss Dori
could not invoke directive to cancel since no horizontal direct effect
individuals.
d. Conclusion: Miss Dori could NOT use directive 85/577 to cancel contract, but
might claim compensation if state is liable under the Francovich principles.
2. Francovich
a. Issue: Mr Francovich claim compensation from Italian state by failing to
implement directive 80/987/EEC on protection employees’ claims in event
employer’s insolvency. Can individual claim compensation from MS if failing to
implement directive after set deadline?
b. Rule: ART288 directives are only binding on MS and not enforceable for
private individuals. State liability for non-implementation: state liable for
damages individual if failing to implement directive, provided:
i. Directive grants rights to individuals;
ii. The content of those rights can be determined based on the provisions
of the directive itself.
iii. Causal link State failure and harm to individuals.
c. Application: Italian state is liable for failing to implement directive. Court stated
compensation could be arranged if the principles above are met.
d. Conclusion: Mr. Francovich entitled for compensation from Italian state as
failed to implement directive. Principle of state liability established.
Week 4 – The internal market (I): introduction to free movement
principles, free movement of goods
1. Dassonville
a. Issue: whether Belgium’s requirement for certificate of origin Scotch whiskey
imported from France is a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative
restriction under ART34, thereby restricting free movement of goods EU.
b. Rule: ART34 prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and measures
having equivalent effects. Any national rule that hinders or restricts trade, even
indirectly, is considered to breach this principle, as outlined in the Dassonville
Formula. A measure is considered to have equivalent effect if it directly or
indirectly impedes the free movement of goods within the EU.
Week 1 – General Aspects
1. Van Gend & Loos
a. Issue: A private company (van Gend & Loos) was charged a higher customer
duty for importing goods from other MS due to change Dutch Law. Can the
company rely directly on ART12 EEC in national court to challenge duty as
being unlawful?
b. Rule: ART12 EEC prohibits MS’s from changing customer duties between
themselves. For a treaty to have direct effect, must be:
i. Clear;
ii. Unconditional;
iii. Not require further implementation.
c. Application: ECJ found ART12 to be sufficiently clear/unconditional;
individuals and companies can invoke provisions directly.
d. Conclusion: ART12 EEC has direct effect, allowing company to challenge duty
to Dutch court. Case established principle of direct effect.
2. Costa-ENEL
a. Issue: Costa (Italian national) unhappy nationalisation Italian electricity sector
(ENEL). Can Italian national law nationalising electricity sector lawfully
override EEC Treaty Provisions, to which they agreed? National law override?
b. Rule: ART267 TFEU establishes EU has supremacy over national law in case
of conflict.
c. Application: ECJ ruled Italy’s nationalisation in conflict with EU law, and
therefor EU law prevails.
d. Conclusion: EU law has supremacy over national law, and Italy’s
nationalisation law cannot overrule EU law. Principle of supremacy of EU law.
Week 2 – Institutions & Competences of the EU, Procedures before
the CJEU
1. Cilfit
a. Issue: The issue in the case was whether the Italian Court of Cassation was
required to refer a question of EU law to the European Court of Justice
(CJEU), despite the Ministry of Health arguing that the interpretation was
obvious and no further reference was needed.
b. Rule: under ART267, national courts must refer EU law questions to CJEU
except if law is clear (‘acte clair’), irrelevant, or if court is highest national
court.
c. Application: Italian court found EU law clear and unambiguous, applying the
‘acte clair’ doctrine and deciding no referral was needed.
d. Conclusion: national courts not required to refer questions to CJEU if ‘acte
clair’
, Week 3 – Decision Making in the EU, Sources of EU Law and State
Liability
1. Faccini Dori
a. Issue: miss Dori wanted to cancel ‘doorstep selling’ right granted by EU
directive, in a situation where Italy failed to implement the directive into
national law.
b. Rule: ART288 TFEU states directives are only binding to MS’s and do not
have horizontal effect (no private individuals). State liability (Francovich
principle) could make MS compensate individual if MS failed to implement
within time-frame.
c. Application: CJEU ruled in the absence of national implementation Miss Dori
could not invoke directive to cancel since no horizontal direct effect
individuals.
d. Conclusion: Miss Dori could NOT use directive 85/577 to cancel contract, but
might claim compensation if state is liable under the Francovich principles.
2. Francovich
a. Issue: Mr Francovich claim compensation from Italian state by failing to
implement directive 80/987/EEC on protection employees’ claims in event
employer’s insolvency. Can individual claim compensation from MS if failing to
implement directive after set deadline?
b. Rule: ART288 directives are only binding on MS and not enforceable for
private individuals. State liability for non-implementation: state liable for
damages individual if failing to implement directive, provided:
i. Directive grants rights to individuals;
ii. The content of those rights can be determined based on the provisions
of the directive itself.
iii. Causal link State failure and harm to individuals.
c. Application: Italian state is liable for failing to implement directive. Court stated
compensation could be arranged if the principles above are met.
d. Conclusion: Mr. Francovich entitled for compensation from Italian state as
failed to implement directive. Principle of state liability established.
Week 4 – The internal market (I): introduction to free movement
principles, free movement of goods
1. Dassonville
a. Issue: whether Belgium’s requirement for certificate of origin Scotch whiskey
imported from France is a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative
restriction under ART34, thereby restricting free movement of goods EU.
b. Rule: ART34 prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and measures
having equivalent effects. Any national rule that hinders or restricts trade, even
indirectly, is considered to breach this principle, as outlined in the Dassonville
Formula. A measure is considered to have equivalent effect if it directly or
indirectly impedes the free movement of goods within the EU.
