EU Law – 1275

Seminar 1
Introduction to EU Law: History and Sources
This seminar is a review of the evolution of the European Union (EU) as an organisation, its
key institutions, its sui generis (unique) and treaty-based legal system. This is preparation for
an in-depth examination later of the foundational era case law of the European Court of
Justice that established the innovative legal principles that currently undergird the EU’s legal
system. The United Kingdom is no longer a member of the European Union as a consequence
of the 2016 Referendum vote to leave and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act,2018. This
seminar explores the effect of this membership and withdrawal on the jurisprudence of the
United Kingdom.

Required Reading
 Ozgur Cinar, Introduction to EU Law (Transnational Press London, 2021) 7 – 15
 Chalmers, Davies and Monti, European Union Law, European Union Law (4th Edition, 2019)
1-57, 57 – 109, 406 – 465
 Paul P. Craig, ‘The Ratifications of the Withdrawal Agreement: UK and EU Perspectives
(2020) Brexit Institute Working Paper Series - No 5/2020, Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3588403 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3588403
 Macarthys Ltd v Smith (1980)
 Re Tachographs: Commission v United Kingdom (1979)
 Francovich v Italian Republic (1991)

MCT Practice and Discussion Questions

1. The United Kingdom became a Member State of the European Union and it has recently
withdrawn. What two pieces of legislation regulate this membership?
a) A referendum only
b) The Treaty for the Functioning of the EU and the Treaty of Europe
c) The European Communities Act 1972 and the European Union (Withdrawal
Act) 2018
d) The U.K. Human Rights Act,1998
2. The Member States of the European Union are:
a) Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lituania,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain,
Sweden and the United Kingdom
b) England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
c) Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lituania,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and
Sweden
d) Albania, Montenegro, Macedonia and Turkey
3. The EU aspires to Democracy and the rule of law. Which statement best describes what
Democracy is:

a) Legislative harmonisation and coordination in a nation-state

b) A benevolent dictator for life
c) A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a
state, typically through elected representatives
d) A coup by an army during a national crisis

4. The European Union and its main institutions are the Council of Ministers, the European
Parliament, the Commission and the European Court of Justice. Select the statement that is
true in relation to these institutions. They each have:
a) Political representation and accountability
b) The European Commission has a rotating presidency
c) A ‘democratic deficit’
d) The European Commission is the executive of the EU and is widely viewed as having
a ‘democratic deficit’

5. What principles of law were established in the case of Macarthys Ltd v Smith, Re
Tachgraphs: Commission v United Kingdom (1979) and Francovich v Italian Republic
(1991)?
Discuss.
EU Law – 1275
Seminar 2
Introduction to Treaties and other EU Law Sources
The Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Treaty of the
European Union are read together as a constitution for the EU. This seminar explains the
international character, evolution, structure and layout of these instruments as important
sources of law as well as the blizzard of regional legislation called Regulations and Directives
that direct and guide the administrative and other practices of each of the Member States.

Required Reading

 Ozgur Cinar, Introduction to EU Law (Transnational Press London, 2021) 7-15

 Chalmers, Davies and Monti, European Union Law, European Union Law (4th Edition, 2019)
20 - 38
 Liav Orgad, ‘The Preamble in Constitutional Interpretation’ (2010) (8) (4) International
Journal of Constitutional Law, 714

MCT Practice and Discussion Questions

1. A Preamble sits at the head of a written constitution. Here the ambitions towards unity,
safeguarding democracy and establishing a just society are listed. The most ambitious and
notable statement in the Preamble to the TFEU is:
a) ANXIOUS to secure God’s blessings of liberty and posterity
b) DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of
Europe
c) UNRESERVEDLY holds the longest history in the world
d) HAS DESIGNATED their Plenipotentiaries WHO, having exchanged their full
powers, found in good and due form, have agreed to bind their respective countries

2. Two Treaties are read together to form the Constitution of the EU. These are:
a) The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty for the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU)
b) The United Nations Charter and the Treaty on European Union (TEU)
c) The European Convention on Human Rights and the Maastricht Treaty
d) The Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Treaty of the
European Union (TEU)

3. In addition to the Treaties, the legislation of the EU includes Regulations. A Regulation is:
a) An urgent act of the U.K Parliament
b) A Recommendation for Member States
c) A binding legislative act that requires an act of Parliament for implementation to local
laws
d) A binding legislative act that must be applied in its entirety across the EU

4. In addition to the Treaties, the legislation of the EU includes Directives. A Directive is:
a) An urgent act of the U.K Parliament
b) A Recommendation for Member States
 c) A binding legislative act that requires an act of Parliament for implementation to local
laws
d) A binding legislative act that must be applied in its entirety across the EU

5. Read Articles 20 to 25 of the TFEU. Discuss your opinion of these rights.

6. How does a European state become a member of the EU and how does it leave? Discuss
with reference to the TEU.
EU Law – 1275
Seminar 3
European Court of Justice and Preliminary Rulings
Article 267 TFEU requires a Member State to ‘refer’ a matter to the European Court of
Justice (ECJ) if the highest court in any of the Member States is uncertain about a provision
of EU Law. This is a legal innovation unknown to international law that is designed to
systematise EU Law and provide consistency in interpretation across the Member States that
have various languages and whose legal systems vary. The principle of acte claire qualifies
the obligation of Member States to refer cases to the ECJ if the legal question turns on a rule
of law that is obvious to all the supreme courts of the Member States.

Required Reading

 Chalmers, Davies and Monti, European Union Law, European Union Law (4th Edition, 2019)
166 – 80
 Lars Hornof and Stefan Voigt, ‘Analysing Preliminary References as the Powerbase of the
European Court of Justice’ (2015) European Journal of Law and Economics, 287
 CILFIT v Ministero della Sanita (Case 283/81)
 Bulmer v Bolinger (1974)
 R v International Stock Exchange of the UK and the Republic of Ireland ex p Else (1993)

MCT Practice and Discussion Questions

Article 267 of the TFEU establishes the Preliminary Reference procedure to:

1. Clarify uncertainty about EU law as well as continue to hear the case on behalf of a
Member State’s court of last resort
a. Develop the acte clair doctrine
b. Ensure uniformity in the application of EU law in each of the 27 Member States
c. To assist high courts with uncertainty about EU Treaties, Regulations and Directives

2. There is a proliferation of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) bodies in each of the

27 Member States. They are created to be alternatives to litigation in courts. The
European Court of Justice will only accept an Article 267 TFEU requests from:
a) Union leaders on behalf of emanations of the state
b) Arbitral bodies, tribunals and ombudsmen
c) Solicitors negotiating on behalf of their clients
d) Independent third-party mediation and conciliation

3. Each of the Member States have courts of last resort that have the discretion to stay
proceedings and use the procedure under Article 267 TFEU to refer a question to the ECJ
for clarification on an aspect of EU. This means that:
a) A high court will temporarily stop a court trial
b) A court trial by a supreme court of a Member State is stopped temporarily whilst the ECJ
interprets the relevant EU Law
c) The court of last resort changes its mind and continues hearing the case and does not refer
it to the European Court of Justice
d) Recommend that the parties go to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
4. The principle of Acte clair is where obvious legal provisions do not need to be interpreted
by the ECJ. This was established in the case of:
a) Van Gen den Loos
b) Defrenne and Sabina
c) CILFIT
d) Von Colson

5. Do you agree that the judgment in CILFIT is ‘paradoxical’?

EU Law – 1275
Seminar 4
Enforcement in National Courts: Supremacy and Direct Effect
The principles of Supremacy and Direct Effect were established in the foundational era cases
whereby the ECJ introduced important political and ideological changes to the character of
the law of the European Union. The ECJ declared that EU Law was superior to that of the
individual member states in the event of a clash between the two bodies of law. They also
said that the laws of the EU applied directly to the laws of the member states and did not like
international law require a local ratification act to become a law in a member state. This type
of law making from the bench was met with much scholarly outrage as ‘judicial activism’
and a grave breach of the separation of powers doctrine. Experienced EU Law commentators
argue that these principles are novel strategies that act as an important curb on state power
and commend the ECJ for its intellectual daring.

Required Reading
 Ozgur Cinar, Introduction to EU Law, 23 - 29
 Chalmers, Davies and Monti, European Union Law (4th Edition, 2019) 289 – 302
 Van Gend en Loos (Case 26/62)
 Foster v British Gas (Case 188/89)
 Defrenne v Sabena (Case 149/77)

MCT Practice and Discussion Questions

1. The seminal case of Van Gend en Loos revolutionizes international law. This is because
the European Court of Justice established the principle of:
a) Supremacy
b) Direct effect
c) Indirect effect and state liability
d) Acte clair

2. The principle of law established in Van Gend en Loos is:

a) Indirect effect and that national courts are obliged to read national law in line with
European law
b) Supremacy and that the law of the EU is supreme over the laws of the 27 Member
States
c) Direct effect of European Law that imposes obligation on individuals but grants them
rights that are enforceable in their national courts
d) State liability for failing to implement a directive

3. The relationship that the parties have to one another in a dispute is very important. That is
to say that Vertical Direct Effect as established in Van Gend en Loos is where:
a) A Member State and another Member State invoke EU law in litigation between them
b) A citizen can rely on EU Law in litigation against a Member State
c) European law imposes obligations on individuals but grants them rights which are
enforceable in their national courts
d) The State is liable for not implementing a directive
4. The European Court of Justice has described certain corporations/companies as an
‘emanation of the state’ most notably in Foster v British Gas. An emanation of the state is:
a) An undertaking (private business)
b) A private school
c) A place of worship - Mosque, church, synagogue
d) A public authority or an organ of the state

5. The principle of Supremacy was established in the case of Costa v ENEL where the
European Court of Justice held that:
a) The peoples of Europe were determined to have an ever-closer Union
b) The restriction of sovereign rights and the creation of a body of law that applies to
individuals and Member States required for this new legal order to override
inconsistent provisions of national law including fundamental rights that national law
did not
c) The national courts are not required to apply EU law in its entirety
d) Member States are not required to repeal the conflicting legislation

6. A company has the status of being a corporate citizen. In Defrenne v Sabena (1976) the
principle of Horizontal Direct Effect was established and this means that:
a) A citizen can rely on EU law in litigation against a Member State
b) A state is liable for not implementing a directive
c) The national courts are obliged to read national law in line with European law
d) A citizen can rely on EU Law in an action against another citizen
EU Law – 1275
Seminar 5
Enforcement in National Courts: Indirect Effect and State Liability
________________________________________________________________________
The judicial reasoning of the ECJ that established the principle of Indirect Effect is that even
if a directive is imprecise or vague the spirit or the intention of the directive must be given
effect to by member states. Unseen in International Law, this principle is a constitutional and
legal device that works alongside State Liability. State Liability is a principle of law where
the ECJ will hold a member state liable for the demise of a group of citizens who suffer for
the failure of the member state to implement a directive. Indirect Effect and State Liability act
as a brake on member states’ actions that adversely affect their citizens.

Required Reading
 Chalmers, Davies and Monti, European Union Law, European Union Law (4th Edition, 2019)
310 -327
 Ozgur Cinar, Introduction to EU Law (Transnational Press London, 2021), 29 -35
 C. Harlow, ‘Francovich and the Problem of the Disobedient State (1996) 2 European Law
Journal, 199
 Von Colsen v Land Nordhein-Westfalen (Case 14/83)
 Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA (Case 106/89)
 Francovich and Bonafaci v Italy (Case 6/90)

MCT Practice and Discussion Questions

1. In the seminal case of Von Colson the European Court of Justice established the principle
of Indirect Effect in relation to an Equal Treatment that was imprecise and therefore did not
meet the criteria for direct effect. In arriving at its decision the European Court of Justice
found that:
a) The prison that Von Colson and Kamman applied to work at as social workers was an
emanation of the state
b) Von Colson and Kamman should be given jobs as social workers in the German
prison that rejected them
c) National courts are under an obligation to interpret national legislation in accordance
with the aims and purposes of directives
d) It agreed with the nominal damages initially granted to Von Colson and Kamman
2. Francovich is a cornerstone decision where the Italian Government failed to implement
Directive 80/987 which required them to create a compensation scheme to protect employees
of insolvent (bankrupt) employers. The European Court of Justice developed the principle of
State Liability which means that:
a) Not imposing liability on the state for non-implementation of a directive
b) Requiring Member States to implement directives and be responsible for
compensating the affected individuals for their financial loss
c) Being only liable depending on the circumstances
d) A Member State relying on the difficulties in its internal system to justify its failure to
implement the directive

4. During the foundational era of the European Union, the European Court of Justice
developed novel principles such as Direct Effect, Indirect Effect, Supremacy, State Liability
and General Principles, the most notable of which is Fundamental Rights. Scholars have
protested that the European Court of Justice has engaged in:
a) The development of the doctrine of precedent
b) The appropriate role of the Court
c) Judicial activism
d) The correct procedure for a Preliminary Ruling

5. Discuss the principle of indirect effect as established in the case of Von Colson for the
protection of EU citizens in their national courts.
EU Law – 1275
Seminar 6
Fundamental Rights in the EU
This seminar introduces the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the relevant case law as
creative and influential mechanisms for ensuring that important human rights and evolving
ideas about human dignity after World War II are/were observed in each of the member
states. This seminar explains that the early jurisprudence of the EU on human rights reflects
much scepticism about the protection of human rights in an organisation that was originally
created to be a single market only. The Charter is binding in nature and Article 6 (1) TEU
gives the Charter the same binding status as the Treaties. The effect of this is that human
rights are fiercely protected within the EU.

Required Reading
 Chalmers, Davies and Monti, European Union Law, European Union Law (4th Edition, 2019)
249 – 284
 Grainne de Burca, ‘After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The Court of Justice as a
Human Rights Adjudicator’ (2013) Volume 20 (3) Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law, 1
 International Handelsgesllschaf (Case 11/70)
 Stork v High Authority (Case 1/54)
 Sgarlata v Commission (Case 40/64)
 Stauder v City of Ulm (Case 26/69)

MCT Practice and Discussion Questions

1. The first of the Fundamental Rights in the EU is the right to life. Which of these statements
in relation to the Charter of Fundamental Rights is TRUE?:
a) Fundamental Human Rights in the European Union were established by the Treaty of
Paris in 1951 when the European Coal and Steel Community was formed
b) Fundamental Human Rights are a bill of rights about the right to life that is contained
in the Charter for Fundamental Human Rights only
c) Fundamental Human Rights developed in the EU through the jurisprudence of the
European Court of Justice only
d) Fundamental human rights are contained in the Charter for Fundamental Human
Rights and various provisions of the Treaty of Europe (TEU).
2. Discuss with reference to the case of Internationale Handelfesellschaft the importance of
fundamental rights as a source of EU Law.
3. How is the Charter of Fundamental Rights different from the European Convention for
Human Rights?
EU Law – 1275
Seminar 7
Free Movement of Goods – Fiscal Barriers
This seminar introduces the legal aspects of the free movement of goods in the EU. The
philosophy behind the free trade of goods between member states and the formation of a
single market was initially to avert another war. The free movement of goods is mandated by
Article 30 which prohibits the charging of customs duties and the application of quantitative
restrictions on imports and exports between Member States. Article 110 strictly prohibits
discriminatory taxation between Member States.

Required Reading

 Ozgur Cinar, Introduction to EU Law (Transnational Press London, 2021)

 Chalmers, Davies and Monti, European Union Law, European Union Law (4th Edition, 2019)
695 – 733
 Commission v Italy (Case 7/68)
 Commission v Belgium (Case 2/90)
 Social Fonds voor Diamantarbeiders (38/73)
 Dassonville (8/74)
 Cassis de Dijon (120/78)
 Keck (267/91) (268/91)

MCT Practice and Discussion Questions

1. The Treaties do not define what “goods” are but this is done in the case of the Commission
v Italy (1968). The European Court of Justice defined ‘goods’ in this way:
a) “...there must be understood products which can be valued in money, and which are
capable as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions”
b) “...most people know intuitively the difference between a product and a service,
actually defining this difference with clarity and accuracy of text is not
straightforward”
c) “...the boundary between public and private goods is socially constructed. That is,
what is a public good and what is a private good is not determined by fixed criteria;
rather it is decided by society”
d) “…we mean the action of helping or doing work for someone”

2. According to Article 30 of the TFEU “customs duties on imports and exports and charges
having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. This prohibition shall
also apply to customs duties of a fiscal nature” Select a statement from the European Court of
Justice that interprets Article 30 TFEU.
a) “Obstacles to movement in the Community resulting from disparities between the
national laws in question must be accepted in so far as those provisions may be
recognised as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating in
particular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the
fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer”
b) The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of
“ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is:
 Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of
Europe…”
c) “.... to ensure an orderly supply of coal and steel to the common market by ensuring
equal access to the sources of production, the establishment of the lowest prices and
improved working conditions. All of this had to be accompanied by the growth in
international trade and the modernisation of productions”
d) “....add up the value of the goods, freight costs, insurance and any additional costs,
then multiply the total by the duty rate. The result is the amount of duty you’ll need to
pay customs for your shipment”

3. Choose the Article of the TFEU that prohibits discriminatory and protective internal
taxation.
a) Article 110 of the Treaty for the Functioning of the EU which states that “No Member
State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any
internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly, on
similar domestic products
b) Article 31 TFEU - Common Customs Tariff duties shall be fixed by the Council on a
proposal from the Commission
c) Article 43 (3) - The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt
measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations and on the fixing
and allocation of fishing opportunities
d) Article 38 (3) - the Union shall define and implement a common agriculture and
fisheries policy. The internal market shall extend to agriculture, fisheries and trade in
agricultural products.

4. Why are internal taxes more acceptable than customs duties and charges having equivalent
effect to a customs duty? Discuss

5. How does the Court of Justice determine whether products are similar for the purpose
article 110? Discuss.
EU Law – 1275
Seminar 8
Free Movement of Goods – Non- Fiscal Barriers
This seminar follows on from the last by reviewing Articles 34 TFEU that articulates the non-
fiscal rules that prohibit quantitative restrictions on the free movement of goods in relation to
quotas and measures having equivalent effect (MEQRs) such as national rules on the
composition of certain products. This is a study of the fiscal rules that out law customs duties
having equivalent effect and internal taxation that is discriminatory. This seminar introduces
defences to Article 34 as well as the circumstances under which selling arrangements fall
outside of Article 34 TFEU.

Required Reading

 Ozgur Cinar, Introduction to EU Law (Transnational Press London, 2021) 35 – 41

 Commission v Italy
 Geddo v Ente
 Henn and Darby
 International Fruit (No.2)
 Procurer du Roi v Dassonville (8/74)
 Commission v Ireland
 Stoke-on-Trent
 Hundermund
 Gourmet International
 Henn and Darby
 Conegate
 R v Thompson
 Commission v Germany
 Campus Oil Ltd
 Walter Rau

MCT Practice and Discussion Questions

1. Explain the difference between quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent
effect to a quantitative restriction (MEQRs) under Article 34

2. With reference to the case of Dassonville and the Commission v Ireland explain what
‘Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction (MEQRs) are.

3. Read the cases of Stoke-on-Trent and Hundermund and explain what a selling arrangement
is.

4. Discuss the exceptions under Article 36 TFEU. Do you agree with them?

5. As it relates to indistinctly applicable measures explain the principle of Mutual

Recognition as established in the case of Cassis de Dijon. When is a measure proportionate?
EU Law – 1275
Seminar 9
Free Movement of Persons
This seminar is a review of one of the fundamental pillars of the internal market. The right to
free movement of persons in the EU under Article 45 (2) is directly tied to the concept of
citizenship for people of this region and their families. This seminar explores the hidden and
not so invisible obstacles to free movement as a consequence of member states’ own
domestic rules on border management. The U.K’s withdrawal from the EU means that it is no
longer obliged to allow the free movement of persons through the U.K and it can reconfigure
and regulate the laws on who can enter the U.K.

Required Reading

 Ozgur Cinar, Introduction to EU Law (Transnational Press London, 2021) 53 - 61

 Chalmers, Davies and Monti, European Union Law, European Union Law (4th Edition, 2019)
475 – 522
 Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano S.P.A (Case 281/98)
 Groener
 Sotqiu v Deutsche Bundespost (Case 152/73)
 Gul v Regiersungsprasident Dusseldorf (Case 131/85)
 Cowan v Tresor Public (Case 186/87)
 Brown v Secretary of State for Scotland (Case 197/86)
 Gravier v City of Liege (Case 293/83)
 Blaizot v University of Liege (Case 24/86)
 Commission v France (Case 167/73)
 Cristini v S.N.C.F (Case 32/75)
 Ministere Public v Even (Case 207/78)

Discussion Question
Jo, a Spanish national arrived in Germany with her husband Ahmet who is a Turkish national
and their son Ali who is 18 years old, having lived in France for the last two years. Jo plans to
take up an offer of work from Frankfurt County Council as an history teacher in a high
school.

She was stopped by immigration officials who asked whether she had sufficient funds to
support herself and her family for a year. She was also asked if she had proof of the offer of
work. The official also questioned her about Ahmet and Ali indicating that they were not
welcome as they had no funds. The official finally gave them leave to enter Germany for
three months.

Jo started work for Frankfurt County Council but has been approached by local immigration
officials and told that her residence is only until the end of term.

Ahmet has been diagnosed with a disability. He has applied for the disability allowance
normally available to the spouses of German citizens in such a situation. He has been turned
down for the allowance on the ground that he is not an EU national.
Since arriving, Ali has made several applications for work but has been unsuccessful. He has
been arrested for a public order offence after a disturbance at a demonstration and has been
threatened with deportation. He has a previous conviction in France for throwing a brick
through a window during a demonstration for which he had been fined by the French court.

On what grounds can Jo, Ahmet and Ali challenge these decisions?