Textbook The Enforcement of Eu Law and Values Ensuring Member States Compliance 1St Edition Jakab Ebook All Chapter PDF

The enforcement of EU law and values :
ensuring member states' compliance

1st Edition Jakab
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-enforcement-of-eu-law-and-values-ensuring-mem
ber-states-compliance-1st-edition-jakab/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights In The EU

Member States 1st Edition Flip Petillion
https://textbookfull.com/product/enforcement-of-intellectual-
property-rights-in-the-eu-member-states-1st-edition-flip-
petillion/
EU Citizens in the European Public Sphere: An Analysis

of EU News in 27 EU Member States 1st Edition Stefanie
Walter
https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-citizens-in-the-european-
public-sphere-an-analysis-of-eu-news-in-27-eu-member-states-1st-
edition-stefanie-walter/
Harmonisation of EU Competition Law Enforcement Jurgita

Malinauskaite
https://textbookfull.com/product/harmonisation-of-eu-competition-
law-enforcement-jurgita-malinauskaite/
The Changing Administrative Law of an EU Member State:

The Italian Case Domenico Sorace
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-changing-administrative-law-
of-an-eu-member-state-the-italian-case-domenico-sorace/
EU Funds in the New Member States Party Politicization
Administrative Capacities and Absorption Problems after
Accession Christian Hagemann
https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-funds-in-the-new-member-
states-party-politicization-administrative-capacities-and-
absorption-problems-after-accession-christian-hagemann/
Unpacking EU Policy-Making towards China: How Member

States, Bureaucracies, and Institutions Shape its China
Economic Policy Bas Hooijmaaijers
https://textbookfull.com/product/unpacking-eu-policy-making-
towards-china-how-member-states-bureaucracies-and-institutions-
shape-its-china-economic-policy-bas-hooijmaaijers/
Pharmaceutical Compliance and Enforcement Answer Book

2016 Howard L. Dorfman
https://textbookfull.com/product/pharmaceutical-compliance-and-
enforcement-answer-book-2016-howard-l-dorfman/
The Politics of Online Copyright Enforcement in the EU:

Access and Control 1st Edition Trisha Meyer (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-politics-of-online-
copyright-enforcement-in-the-eu-access-and-control-1st-edition-
trisha-meyer-auth/
External Energy Security in the European Union Small

Member States Perspective Matus Misik
https://textbookfull.com/product/external-energy-security-in-the-
european-union-small-member-states-perspective-matus-misik/
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/2/2017, SPi
T H E EN F O R C E M E N T O F E U L A W A N D V A L U E S
The Enforcement of EU
Law and Values
Ensuring Member States’ Compliance
Edited by
ANDRÁS JAKAB
Director of the Institute for Legal Studies at the Centre for Social Sciences
of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest; Professor in Constitutional
and European Law at Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest
and
DIMITRY KOCHENOV
Chair in EU Constitutional Law, University of Groningen
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© The several contributors 2017
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2017
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence
Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI
and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016954563
ISBN 978–0–19–874656–0
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
To Norbert Reich
Avant-propos
During the many years that this book was in preparation, we had the luck of benefiting
from the assistance, advice, and support of a number of remarkable colleagues, including
Leonardo Álvarez Álvarez, Eszter Bodnár, Bojan Bugarič, Aleksejs Dimitrovs, Federico
Fabbrini, Tamás Győrfi, Tamás Hoffmann, Miklós Hollán, Balázs Horváthy, Ester Herlin
Karnell, Mónika Papp, Michael Meyer-Resende, Kim Lane Scheppele, Gábor Sulyok,
Jonathan Tomkin, Anna Tsiftsoglu, David Wineroither, and Andrej Zwitter. Most import-
antly, however, we would like to thank the authors of the book for their engaging
scholarship, constant support, and, importantly with a volume as large as this one, their
infinite patience. We are grateful also to the scholars whose work did not pass peer review
and was thus not included in this volume.
The idea of the present volume grew out of a conference organized by the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences, with the generous support of the Swedish, Dutch, French, and US
embassies in Budapest, on ‘The Enforcement of EU Law against Member States’ on 21 May
2013, which made it clear that the EU cannot do much in terms of the enforcement of
values. This is when the work on this volume started. The initial structure was penned at a
café not far from the Academy and the authors’ workshop followed in one year’s time,
where the drafts were discussed in-depth. We are thankful to Mattias Kumm who hosted
the authors’ workshop at WZB in Berlin and to all the scholars who attended without
submitting chapters.
Alec Swann, Elinor Shields, and Natasha Flemming of Oxford University Press made
this book a delight to work on. Pázmány Peter Catholic University, Budapest and Stichting
voor Bevoordering van Europees Recht, Groningen contributed financial support to the
linguistic revisions of the manuscript. Last but not least, this collection would not have been
possible without the dedication and help of a number of our assistants, including Eva
Kappelhof (Groningen), Justin Lindeboom (London), Harry Panagopoulos (Brussels),
Jacquelyn Veraldi (Groningen), and especially, Bálint Gárdos (Budapest), who was at the
lead of the hands-on work on this book. Thank you.
To our deep regret, one of the key contributors to this volume, Professor Norbert Reich
passed away during the final stages of the work on this project. We dedicate this book to his
memory as a token of our profound respect of his optimistic and jovial spirit, overwhelm-
ing dedication to the study of the law, and the depth and breadth of his scholarly
achievement, which has inspired both of us since our university days.
AJ and DK
Budapest / Princeton, May 2016
Contents
List of Abbreviations xvii

List of Contributors xx
Table of Cases xxii
Introductory Remarks 1
András Jakab and Dimitry Kochenov
I . T HE O R E T I C A L I S S U E S
1. The Acquis and Its Principles: The Enforcement of the ‘Law’ versus
the Enforcement of ‘Values’ in the EU 9
Dimitry Kochenov
2. On the Legal Enforcement of Values. The Importance of the
Institutional Context 28
Giulio Itzcovich
3. Pluralism and Systemic Defiance in the EU 44
Matej Avbelj
I I . I N ST R U MEN T S A ND M E TH O D S: E S T A B L I S HE D
A N D PR O P O S E D
4. Infringement Proceedings 65
Laurence W Gormley
5. Making Effective Use of Article 260 TFEU 79
Pål Wennerås
6. Preliminary References as a Means for Enforcing EU Law 99
Morten Broberg
7. Francovich Enforcement Analysed and Illustrated by German
(and English) Law 112
Norbert Reich
8. The Bite, the Bark, and the Howl: Article 7 TEU and the Rule of
Law Initiatives 128
Leonard Besselink
9. Compliance and Enforcement in Economic Policy Coordination in EMU 145
Fabian Amtenbrink and René Repasi
10. Rule of Law Values in the Decentralized Public Enforcement
of EU Competition Law 182
Katalin J Cseres
11. Soft Law and the Enforcement of EU Law 200
Oana Ştefan
12. Protecting EU Values: Reverse Solange and the Rule of Law Framework 218
Armin von Bogdandy, Carlino Antpöhler, and Michael Ioannidis
x Contents
13. A Democracy Commission of One’s Own, or What it would take

for the EU to safeguard Liberal Democracy in its Member States 234
Jan-Werner Müller
14. Application of the EU CFR by National Courts in Purely
Domestic Cases 252
András Jakab
III. COMPARATIVE O UTLOOK

15. Enforcement of Federal Law against the German Länder 265
Dirk Hanschel
16. The Enforcement of Federal Law in the Belgian Federal State 283
Céline Romainville and Marc Verdussen
17. Regional Defiance and Enforcement of Federal Law in Spain:
The Claims for Sovereignty in the Basque Country and Catalonia 300
Alberto López-Basaguren
18. Enforcement of National Law against Subnational Units in the US 316
Mark Tushnet
19. The Enforcement of ECtHR Judgments 326
Élisabeth Lambert Abdelgawad
20. Enforcing WTO Law 341
Antonello Tancredi
21. Enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions and of ICJ
Judgments: The Unreliability of Political Enforcement Mechanisms 363
Irène Couzigou
22. Securing Compliance with Democracy Requirements in Regional
Organizations 379
Carlos Closa
IV . CAS E S TU D I ES IN T HE CO N T EXT O F EU L AW
23. Defiance by a Constitutional Court—Germany 403
Franz C Mayer
24. Defiance for European Influence—the Empty Chair and France 422
Jacques Ziller
25. Questioning the Basic Values—Austria and Jörg Haider 436
Konrad Lachmayer
26. Challenging the Basic Values—Problems in the Rule of Law in
Hungary and the Failure of the EU to Tackle Them 456
Zoltán Szente
27. Weak Members and the Enforcement of EU Law 476
Michael Ioannidis
28. Inside but Out? The UK and the EU 493
Adam Łazowski
Index 511
Contents
List of Abbreviations xvii

List of Contributors xx
Table of Cases xxii
Introductory Remarks 1
András Jakab and Dimitry Kochenov
I . T HE O R E T I C A L I S S U E S
1. The Acquis and Its Principles: The Enforcement of the ‘Law’ versus
the Enforcement of ‘Values’ in the EU 9
Dimitry Kochenov
1. Values and principles in Article 2 TEU 9
2. Enforcement of values and the structure of the argument 10
3. The values in the context of the acquis 12
4. The core proposals to ensure that values are enforced
alongside the acquis 17
5. Complexities behind the simple solutions: concluding remarks 26
2. On the Legal Enforcement of Values. The Importance of the

Institutional Context 28
Giulio Itzcovich
1. Premise. Government by laws and government by values 28
2. The spread of rights 30
3. Normative theories of legal interpretation 32
4. Noble dreams and nightmares 36
5. Enforcement of values and institutional context 39
6. Conclusion 41
3. Pluralism and Systemic Defiance in the EU 44

Matej Avbelj
1. Introduction 44
2. Pluralism and the pluralist conception of the EU 45
3. Systemic defiance from a pluralist perspective 49
4. Pluralism: its strengths and weaknesses 56
5. Conclusion 59
I I . I N ST R U MEN T S A ND M E TH O D S: E S T A B L I S HE D
A N D PR O P O S E D
4. Infringement Proceedings 65
Laurence W Gormley
1. Introduction 65
2. Some general observations 65
3. The workings of the procedure 66
xii Contents
4. Failures concerning directives 70

5. Complaints 72
6. Bagging several flies in one swat 73
7. Concluding observations 78
5. Making Effective Use of Article 260 TFEU 79

Pål Wennerås
1. Introduction 79
2. Control and enforcement 79
3. The scope of Article 260(1)–(2) TFEU 80
4. The scope of Article 260(3) TFEU 88
5. Sanctions under Article 260(2) TFEU 89
6. Sanctions under Article 260(3) TFEU 96
7. Conclusion 97
6. Preliminary References as a Means for Enforcing EU Law 99
Morten Broberg
1. Introduction 99
2. Private parties’ access to the preliminary reference procedure 99
3. Inducing a national court to refer 103
4. Effects of a preliminary ruling 107
5. Ensuring the right of defence 108
6. Concluding remarks 111
7. Francovich Enforcement Analysed and Illustrated by German

(and English) Law 112
Norbert Reich
1. The objective of this chapter 112
2. Two conflicting theoretical approaches and one empirical analysis 113
3. The leeway left to national law in determining the ‘seriousness
of the breach’ 115
4. Causation, co-responsibility, and national law 120
5. Liability as a safety net where horizontal direct effect has been denied? 122
6. Through the critical ‘Looking Glass’: The ‘implementation imbalance’
of Francovich 123
7. Conclusion 127
8. The Bite, the Bark, and the Howl: Article 7 TEU and the Rule of
Law Initiatives 128
Leonard Besselink
1. Article 7 TEU 128
2. What sanctions? 129
3. What rights can and cannot be suspended? 129
4. Five actors and their roles 131
5. The preventive function of the first paragraph of Article 7 133
6. The Rule of Law Initiative: origin and reception 134
7. The Council on the Rule of Law Initiative 136
8. Monitoring powers: within or outside the framework of Article 7? 138
9. The fuzzy boundaries between the Union and Member
State political orders 141
10. Final remarks 143
Contents xiii
9. Compliance and Enforcement in Economic Policy Coordination in EMU 145

Fabian Amtenbrink and René Repasi
1. Introduction 145
2. Member State compliance—a theoretical framework 146
3. In search of compliance mechanisms in economic policy
coordination 151
4. Assessment of the Union legal framework on economic policy
coordination 169
5. Conclusion and outlook 179
10. Rule of Law Values in the Decentralized Public Enforcement
of EU Competition Law 182
Katalin J Cseres
1. Introduction 182
2. Decentralizing enforcement 183
3. Parallel application of EU and national competition law 185
4. Effect on trade concept 187
5. Case allocation and coordination mechanisms 189
6. Multilevel governance under Regulation 1/2003 193
7. ‘Voluntary’ harmonization 196
8. Conclusion 198
11. Soft Law and the Enforcement of EU Law 200
Oana Ştefan
1. Introduction 200
2. Enforcement theories: between compliance and deterrence 203
3. Compliance mechanisms 205
4. Deterrence mechanisms 206
5. Hybridity of enforcement as a consequence of a hybrid regulatory
framework 211
6. Soft law (coercive) enforcement and Rule of Law values? 215
7. Conclusion 217
12. Protecting EU Values: Reverse Solange and the Rule of Law Framework 218
Armin von Bogdandy, Carlino Antpöhler, and Michael Ioannidis
1. Introduction: Manifold instances of constitutional crises 218
2. The Reverse Solange doctrine 219
3. The Council’s Rule of Law dialogue 224
4. The Commission’s Rule of Law Framework 225
5. A new role for Article 7(1) TEU 233
13. A Democracy Commission of One’s Own, or What it would take

for the EU to safeguard Liberal Democracy in its Member States 234
Jan-Werner Müller
1. What’s wrong with what we have now: a brief review 235
2. The proposal: a democracy watchdog for the Union 238
3. The question of criteria 243
4. Objections 247
5. Would democracy protection by the EU really be seen as legitimate? 250
6. Concluding thoughts 250
xiv Contents
14. Application of the EU CFR by National Courts in Purely

Domestic Cases 252
András Jakab
1. Political vs judicial enforcement methods 252
2. Existing interpretations of Article 51(1) CFR 253
3. For a creative reinterpretation of Article 51(1) 255
4. ‘This is just not the law’—or the nature of leading cases and
the values of European integration 259
5. Advice to the ECJ 260
III. COMPARATIVE O UTLOOK

15. Enforcement of Federal Law against the German Länder 265
Dirk Hanschel
1. Introduction 265
2. Overview of pertinent features of the German federation 266
3. Instruments of federal law enforcement 271
4. Legal restraints on federal enforcement 279
5. Conclusion 281
16. The Enforcement of Federal Law in the Belgian Federal State 283
Céline Romainville and Marc Verdussen
1. The Institutionalization of defiance and the verticality and equality
principles 284
2. Enforcement of federal law by federate entities 287
3. Cooperation with the federal authority and the issue of obstruction 294
4. Judicial control of the enforcement of federal law and its limits 295
5. Enforcement of federal law in case of defiance of the decisions of the
Constitutional Court 297
6. Conclusion 298
17. Regional Defiance and Enforcement of Federal Law in Spain:
The Claims for Sovereignty in the Basque Country and Catalonia 300
Alberto López-Basaguren
1. Introduction: regional defiance of federal law in Spain 300
2. The scrutiny of regional activity by the courts 303
3. Compulsory enforcement on the regions: an extraordinary
constitutional tool (yet to be used) 309
4. Refusal to comply with federal law and criminal liability 311
18. Enforcement of National Law against Subnational Units in the US 316

Mark Tushnet
1. Key background features 316
2. National regulation of state governments 318
3. Conclusion 325
19. The Enforcement of ECtHR Judgments 326
Élisabeth Lambert Abdelgawad
1. Preventing Member State refusal to comply 328
2. Sanctioning a State’s refusal to abide by a final judgment 335
Contents xv
20. Enforcing WTO Law 341

Antonello Tancredi
1. Introduction 341
2. The enforcement mechanism set up by the WTO DSU 343
3. Reciprocity as an objective of the WTO legal system 346
4. Reciprocity and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism:
the issue of the locus standi 347
5. The lack of formal standing for individuals 351
6. Reciprocity and WTO remedies 353
7. Post-litigation negotiations and the hybrid nature of the WTO dispute
settlement mechanism 354
8. (Sequitur) the hybrid nature of the WTO dispute settlement
system and its consequences under a law-and-economics perspective 359
9. How long can the ‘room for manoeuvre’ be enjoyed? 361
10. Conclusion 362
21. Enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions and of ICJ
Judgments: The Unreliability of Political Enforcement Mechanisms 363
Irène Couzigou
1. Inconsistent enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions 365
2. An inconsistent enforcement of ICJ judgments 372
22. Securing Compliance with Democracy Requirements in Regional
Organizations 379
Carlos Closa
1. Introduction 379
2. Enforcing democratic conditionality in regional organizations 380
3. Typology of suspension provisions in international organizations 382
4. Institutional rules for implementing suspension clauses 387
5. Practice of suspension because of democratic breaches 392
6. Assessing performance: when poor institutional design meets
political practice 396
7. Concluding remarks 400
IV . CAS E S TU D I ES I N T HE C ON T EXT O F EU L AW
23. Defiance by a Constitutional Court—Germany 403
Franz C Mayer
1. Introduction 403
2. The German Constitutional Court and European
integration—a closer look 403
3. Rebels with or without a cause? Explaining and analysing the German
Constitutional Court’s defiance 417
4. Possible future developments 420
24. Defiance for European Influence—the Empty Chair and France 422
Jacques Ziller
1. The crisis 422
2. The context 429
xvi Contents
3. The outcomes and aftermath of the Empty Chair crisis 432

4. Lessons to be learnt 433
25. Questioning the Basic Values—Austria and Jörg Haider 436
Konrad Lachmayer
1. The end of the grand coalition or the EU 14’s measures 436
2. The story behind the story: evaluating the coalition government
2000–2006 448
3. Conclusion 454
26. Challenging the Basic Values—Problems in the Rule of Law in

Hungary and the Failure of the EU to Tackle Them 456
Zoltán Szente
1. Introduction 456
2. Non-compliance conflicts 457
3. Threatening the basic values of the EU—the constitutional issues 459
4. Rule of Law infringement procedures 465
5. The legal arguments in the debate between the EU and the Hungarian
government 467
6. Explaining the recent Hungarian developments 470
7. Lessons from the Hungarian case 472
27. Weak Members and the Enforcement of EU Law 476

Michael Ioannidis
1. Introduction 476
2. Weak members 477
3. Weak members and the enforcement of EU law: the case of Greece 485
4. Conclusion 492
28. Inside but Out? The UK and the EU 493

Adam Łazowski
1. Defiance in action: the case of the UK 494
2. Methods of fighting defiance 500
3. Looking ahead: how to secure enforcement of EU law in a
politically hostile environment with a withdrawal looming on
the horizon 507
4. Conclusion 510
Index 511
List of Abbreviations
ACP African, Caribbean, and Pacific

AFSJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
AG Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU
ALBA Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra America (Bolivarian Alliance
for the Peoples of Our America)
AMR Alert Mechanism Report
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AU African Union
BayVerwGH Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Administrative Court)
BGB Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code)
BGH Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice of Germany)
BL Basic Law (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany)
BVerfG Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court)
BVerfGE Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (Decisions of the German Federal
Constitutional Court)
CAN Andean Community
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CARICOM Caribbean Community
CCR Constitutional Court Ruling
CEEC Central and Eastern European Countries
CELAC Community of Latin American and Caribbean States
CEPEG European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
CFR Charter of Fundamental Rights
CHGOM Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
CM Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
CMAG Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group
CoE Council of Europe
CPT Committee for the Prevention of Torture
CSCE Committee on Security and Cooperation in Europe
CSLS Council of State, Legislation Section (Belgium)
CTC UN Counter-Terrorism Committee
CUP Cambridge University Press
CUP Candidacy of Popular Unity
EAC East African Community
EC Bull EC Bulletin
ECB European Central Bank
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
ECJ Court of Justice of the EU
ECN European Competition Network
ECOWAS Economic Community of West Africa
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
EFSF European Financial Stability Facility
EFSM European Financial Stability Mechanism
EIB European Investment Bank
EMU Economic and Monetary Union
EP European Parliament
EPG Eminent Persons Group
EPP European Peoples’ Party
ESM European Stability Mechanism
ESM Treaty Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism
EU European Union
xviii List of Abbreviations
EUSA European Union Studies Association

FEIE Exhange of Information and Enforcement
FPÖ Freedom Party of Austria
FRA Fundamental Rights Agency
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1947)
GC General Court of the European Union
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GUAM Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbayan, and Moldova
IACHR Inter American Court of Human Rights
IADC Inter-American Democratic Charter
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICLQ International and Comparative Law Quarterly
ILO International Labour Organization
IMF International Monetary Fund
IMPEL EU Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of
Environmental Law
JHA Justice and Home Affairs
LG Landgericht (State Court of Justice: Germany)
Mercosur Mercado Común del Sur (Southern Common Market)
MFN Most favoured nation
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MSC Mediation and Security Council
MTO Medium-Term Objective
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NCA National Competition Authority
NJO National Judicial Office (Hungary)
NRP National Reform Programmes
OAS Organization of American States
OAU Organization of African Unity
ODIHR Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
OFT Office of Fair Trading
OIF Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (International
Organisation of La Francphonie)
OJ Official Journal of the EC
OLAF European Anti-fraud Office
OLCC Organic Law on the Constitutional Court (Spain)
OMC Open Method of Coordination
OMT Outright Monetary Transactions
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
OUP Oxford University Press
PACE Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
PDCR Parliamentary Documents of the Chamber of Representatives (Belgium)
PDS Parliamentary Documents of the Senate (Belgium)
PIF Pacific Islands Forum
PPP Purchasing Power Parity
QMV Qualified Majority Voting
RQMV Reversed Qualified Majority Voting
SAC State Audit Commission (Hungary)
SAC Statute of Catalonia
SADC Southern African Development Community
SASRS Special Act on the Sixth Reform of the State 2014 (Belgium)
SCP Stability and Convergence Programmes
SGP Stability and Growth Pact
List of Abbreviations xix
SICA Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana (Central American

Integration System)
SIRA Special Institutional Reform Act 1980 (Belgium)
SJ Solicitors’ Journal
TEU Treaty on European Union
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
TSCG Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in Economic and
Monetary Union
UDI Unilateral Declaration of Independence
UK United Kingdom
UKIP United Kingdom Independence Party
UN United Nations
UNASUR Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (Union of South American Nations)
UPU Universal Postal Union
US United States
WEO World Economic Outlook
WGI World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators
WTO World Trade Organization
WTO DSB WTO Dispute Settlement Body
WTO DSU WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding
List of Contributors
Fabian Amtenbrink is Vice Dean and Professor of EU Law at the Erasmus School of Law, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, and Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, Bruges.
Carlino Antpöhler is Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and
International Law, Heidelberg.
Matej Avbelj is Dean and Associate Professor of European Law at the Graduate School of
Government and European Studies, Kranj.
Leonard Besselink is Head of the Department of Public Law and Chair of Constitutional Law at the
Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam.
Armin von Bogdandy is Director at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and
International Law in Heidelberg.
Morten Broberg is is Professor of Law and Jean Monnet Chair (2012–15), Faculty of Law,
University of Copenhagen and is a Visiting Fellow (2016–17), Department of Politics and Inter-
national Studies, University of Cambridge.
Carlos Closa is Professor at the Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP) at the Spanish National
Research Council (CSIC).
Irène Couzigou is Lecturer at the University of Aberdeen Law School.
Katalin Cseres is Associate Professor of Law at the Amsterdam Centre for European Law and
Governance, University of Amsterdam.
Laurence W Gormley is Professor of European Law and Jean Monnet Professor, University of
Groningen, Faculty of Law and Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, Bruges.
Dirk Hanschel holds the Chair of German, European and International Public Law at the
University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.
Michael Ioannidis is Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public
Law and International Law, Heidelberg.
Giulio Itzcovich is Associate Professor of Philosophy of Law in the Department of Legal Science at
the University of Brescia, Italy, and a permanent fellow of the Tarello Institute for Legal Philosophy
at the University of Genoa.
András Jakab is Director of the Institute for Legal Studies at the Centre for Social Sciences of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and Professor in Constitutional and European Law at Pázmány
Péter Catholic University Budapest.
Dimitry Kochenov is Chair in EU Constitutional Law at the University of Groningen, Faculty
of Law.
Konrad Lachmayer holds a Research Chair at the Institute for Legal Studies of the Centre for Social
Sciences at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and is a Research Fellow at Durham Law School.
Élisabeth Lambert Abdelgawad is CNRS Research Professor at SAGE, Université de Strasbourg.
Adam Łazowski is Professor of EU Law at the Westminster Law School, University of Westminster,
London.
Alberto López-Basaguren is Professor of Constitutional Law, University of the Basque Country,
Bilbao.
Franz C Mayer is Chair of Public Law, European Law and Public International Law, Comparative
Law, Law and Politics at Bielefeld University.
List of Contributors xxi
Jan-Werner Müller is a Professor of Politics at Princeton University.

Norbert Reich (†) was Emeritus Professor at the University of Bremen and Visiting Professor at the
University of Groningen, Faculty of Law.
René Repasi is researcher at the Department for International and European Union Law of the
Erasmus University Rotterdam and scientific coordinator of the European Research Centre for
Economic and Financial Governance (EURO-CEFG).
Céline Romainville is Professor in Constitutional Law and a member of the Research Centre on
State and Constitution, Université de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Oana Ştefan is a Senior Lecturer in EU Law at Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College,
London.
Zoltán Szente is Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of National Public Service,
Budapest and holds a Research Chair at the Institute for Legal Studies of the Centre for Social
Sciences at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Antonello Tancredi is Professor of International Law at the Department of Law, University of
Palermo.
Mark Tushnet is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
Marc Verdussen is Professor in Constitutional Law and a member of the Research Centre on State
and Constitution, Université de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Pål Wennerås is Advocate at the Office of the Attorney General, Norway.
Jacques Ziller is Professor of EU Law at the University of Pavia.
Table of Cases
SUPRANATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COURTS

Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
European Court of Justice (ECJ)
Case C-526/14 Kotnik v. Republic of Slovenia ECLI:EU:C:2016:570 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Case C-441/14 Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v. Estate of Karsten Eigil
Rasmussen ECLI:EU:C:2016:278. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Case C-345/14 SIA “Maxima Latvija” v. Konkurences padome ECLI:EU:C:2015:784. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Case C-62/14 Peter Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag ECLI:EU:C:2015:400. . . . . . . 210, 415, 420
Case C-28/14 Ryszard Pańczyk v. Dyrektor Zakładu Emerytalno-Rentowego Ministerstwa
Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji w Warszawie ECLI:EU:C:2014:2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Case C-507/13 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. European Parliament
and Council of the European Union ECLI:EU:C:2014:2481 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497–8
Case C-505/13 Levent Redzheb Yumer v. Direktor na Teritoriyalna direktsia na Natsionalnagentsia
za prihodite ECLI:EU:C:2014:2129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
Case C-386/13 European Commission v. Cyprus ECLI:EU:C:2014:2257 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Case C-385/13 P Italian Republic v. European Commission ECLI:EU:C:2014:2350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Case C-378/13 European Commission v. Hellenic Republic ECLI:EU:C:2014:2405. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 91–4
Case C-333/13 Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358 . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Case C-318/13 Proceedings brought by X ECLI:EU:C:2014:2133 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Case C-244/13 Ewaen Fred Ogieriakhi v. Minister for Justice and Equality and Others
ECLI:EU:C:2014:2068. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Case C-241/13 European Commission v. Estonia ECLI:EU:C:2014:2137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Case C-240/13 European Commission v. Estonia ECLI:EU:C:2014:2136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Case C-209/13 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Council of the European
Union ECLI:EU:C:2014:283 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
Case C-206/13 Cruciano Siragusa v. Regione Sicilia – Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali
di Palermo ECLI:EU:C:2014:126. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Case C-203/13 European Commission v. Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Case C-198/13 Víctor Manuel Julian Hernández and Others v. Puntal Arquitectura SL and Others
ECLI:EU:C:2014:2055. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Case C-196/13 European Commission v. Italian Republic ECLI:EU:C:2014:2407. . . . . . . 83–4, 90–2, 94, 96
Case C-173/13 Maurice Leone and Blandine Leone v. Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice and
Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales ECLI:EU:C:2014:2090 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Case C-111/13 European Commission v. Finland ECLI:EU:C:2013:881 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Case C-109/13 European Commission v. Finland ECLI:EU:C:2013:880 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Case C-81/13 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Council of the European
Union ECLI:EU:C:2014:2449 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
Case C-605/12 Welmory sp z oo v. Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Gdańsku
ECLI:EU:C:2014:2298. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 110
Case C-557/12 Kone AG, Otis GmbH, Schindler Aufzüge und Fahrteppen GmbH and others
v. OBB- Infrastruktur AG ECLI:EU:C:2014:1317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Case C-545/12 European Commission v. Cyprus ECLI:EU:C:2013:329 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Case C-532/12 European Commission v. Grand Duchy of Luxemburg ECLI:EU:C:2013:158. . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Joined Cases C-488/12 to C-491/12 and C-526/12 Nagy Sándor and Others v. Hajdú-Bihar megyei
Kormányhivatal and Others ECLI:EU:C:2013/703. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Case C-525/12 European Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany ECLI:EU:C:2014:2202 . . . . . . . . 110
Case C-407/12 European Commission v. Slovenia ECLI:EU:C:2013:216. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96–7
Case C-406/12 European Commission v. Slovenia ECLI:EU:C:2013:215. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96–7
Case C-370/12 Thomas Pringle v. Government of Ireland, Ireland and The Attorney General
ECLI:EU:C:2012:756 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Case C-362/12 Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation
ECLI:EU:C:2013:834 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Case C-331/12 European Commission v. Poland ECLI:EU:C:2013:214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96–7
Case C-329/12 European Commission v. Germany ECLI:EU:C:2014:2034 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96–7
Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland ECLI:EU:C:2014:238. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
Table of Cases xxiii
Case C-288/12 European Commission v. Hungary ECLI:EU:C:2014:237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75, 257, 467

Case C-286/12 European Commission v. Hungary ECLI:EU:C:2012:687 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75, 236, 466
Case C-274/12 P Telefónica SA v. European Commission ECLI:EU:C:2013:852. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Case C-270/12 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. European Parliament
and Council of the European Union ECLI:EU:C:2014:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
Case C-262/12 Association Vent De Colère! Fédération nationale and Others v. Ministre de
l’Écologie, du Développement durable, des Transports et du Logement and Ministre
de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie ECLI:EU:C:2013:851 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Case C-245/12 European Commission v. Poland ECLI:EU:C:2013:584 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96–7
Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale v. Union locale des syndicats CGT and Others
ECLI:EU:C:2014:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Case C-95/12 European Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany
ECLI:EU:C:2013:676 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 82–3, 85, 93
Case C-87/12 Kreshnik Ymeraga and Others v. Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de
l’Immigration ECLI:EU:C:2013:291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Case C-86/12 Adzo Domenyo Alokpa and Others v. Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi
et de l’Immigration ECLI:EU:C:2013:645 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Case C-68/12 Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky v. Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s.
ECLI:EU:C:2013:71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Case C-43/12 European Commission v. European Parliament, Council of the European Union
ECLI:EU:C:2014:298 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
Case C-681/11 Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde and Bundeskartellanwalt v. Schenker & Co AG and
others ECLI:EU:C:2013:404. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Case C-657/11 Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology NV v. Bert Peelaers and Visys NV
ECLI:EU:C:2013:516 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-656/11 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Council of the
European Union ECLI:EU:C:2014:97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
Case C-576/11 European Commission v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
ECLI:EU:C:2013:773. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 93–4
Case C-533/11 European Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium ECLI:EU:C:2013:659 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 93–4
Case C-499/11 P The Dow Chemical Company and Others v. European Commission
ECLI:EU:C:2013:482 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, 95
Case C-431/11 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Council of
the European Union ECLI:EU:C:2013:589 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496–7
Case C-374/11 European Commission v. Ireland ECLI:EU:C:2012:827 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90–1, 93–4
Case C-292/11 P European Commission v. Portuguese Republic ECLI:EU:C:2014:3 . . . . . . 81, 83, 85, 87–8
Case C-279/11 European Commission v. Ireland ECLI:EU:C:2012:834 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, 93–4, 96
Case C-270/11 European Commission v. Kingdom of Sweden ECLI:EU:C:2013:339 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93–4
Case C-256/11 Murat Dereci and Others v. Bundesministerium für Inneres
ECLI:EU:C:2011:734. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Case C-251/11 Martial Huet v. Université de Bretagne occidentale ECLI:EU:C:2012:133. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Case C-241/11 European Commission v. Czech Republic ECLI:EU:C:2013:423 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92–6
Case C-226/11 Expedia Inc. v. Autorité de la concurrence and Others
ECLI:EU:C:2012:795 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187–8, 210, 216
Case C-184/11 European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain ECLI:EU:C:2014:316 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93, 94
Case C-68/11 European Commission v. Italian Republic ECLI:EU:C:2012:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815
Case C-40/11 Yoshikazu Iida v. Stadt Ulm ECLI:EU:C:2012:691 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Case C-34/11 European Commission v. Portuguese Republic ECLI:EU:C:2012:712 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-32/11 Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt. and Others v. Gazdasági Versenyhivatal
ECLI:EU:C:2013:160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Case C-4/11 Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Kaveh Puid ECLI:EU:C:2013:740 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Case C-617/10 Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson ECLI:EU:C:2013:105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 254,
256–257, 407–9
Case C-610/10 European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain
ECLI:EU:C:2012:781 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–1, 90–1, 93–4, 256–257
Case C-602/10 SC Volksbank România SA v. Autoritatea Naţională pentru Protecţia
Consumatorilor - Comisariatul Judeţean pentru Protecţia Consumatorilor Călăraşi
(CJPC) ECLI:EU:C:2012:443. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-599/10 SAG ELV Slovensko a.s. and Others v. Úrad pre verejné obstarávanie
ECLI:EU:C:2012:191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Case C-431/10 European Commission v. Ireland [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:227 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
xxiv Table of Cases
Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 N. S. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and
M. E. and Others v. Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice,
Equality and Law Reform ECLI:EU:C:2011:865 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 73, 482, 501
Case C-364/10 Hungary v. Slovak Republic ECLI:EU:C:2012:630 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Case C-316/10 Danske Svineproducenter v. Justitsministeriet ECLI:EU:C:2011:863 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-282/10 Maribel Dominguez v. Centre informatique du Centre Ouest Atlantique and
Préfet de la région Centre ECLI:EU:C:2012:33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Joined Cases C-188/10 and C-189/10 Aziz Melki and Sélim Abdeli ECLI:EU:C:2010:363 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Case C-135/10 Società Consortile Fonografici (SCF) v. Marco Del Corso (SCF)
ECLI:EU:C:2012:140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Joined Cases C-128/10 and C-129/10 Naftiliaki Etaireia Thasou AE and Amaltheia I Naftiki
Etaireia v. Ypourgos Emporikis Naftilías ECLI:EU:C:2011:163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Case C-17/10 Toshiba Corporation and Others v. Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže
ECLI:EU:C:2012:72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185–6, 190–1, 199
Case C-529/09 European Commission v. Kingdom of Spain ECLI:EU:C:2013:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Case C-410/09 Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa v. Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
ECLI:EU:C:2011:294 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Case C-496/09 European Commission v. Italian Republic ECLI:EU:C:2011:740 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80–1, 90–4
Joined Cases C-465/09 P to C-470/09 P Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v. Commission of the
European Communities ECLI:EU:C:2011:372 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Case C-437/09 AG2R Prévoyance v. Beaudout Père et Fils SARL ECLI:EU:C:2011:112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-434/09 Shirley McCarthy v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
ECLI:EU:C:2011:277 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Case C-429/09 Günter Fuß v. Stadt Halle (Fuß II) ECLI:EU:C:2010:717 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 117, 121, 127
Case C-421/09 Humanplasma v. Republic of Austria ECLI:EU:C:2010:760. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 104
Case C-407/09 European Commission v. Greece ECLI:EU:C:2011:196 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, 93
Case C-396/09 Interedil Srl, in liquidation v. Fallimento Interedil Srl and Intesa Gestione
Crediti SpA ECLI:EU:C:2011:671 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Case C-375/09 Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów v. Tele2 Polska sp. z o.o.,
devenue Netia SA ECLI:EU:C:2011:270. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188, 190, 192, 195
Case C-360/09 Pfleiderer AG v. Bundeskartellamt ECLI:EU:C:2011:389. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195, 210, 216
Case C-294/09 European Commission v. Ireland ECLI:EU:C:2010:200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Case C-243/09 Günter Fuß v. Stadt Halle (Fuß I) ECLI:EU:C:2010:609 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Case C-232/09 Dita Danosa v. LKB Līzings SIA ECLI:EU:C:2010:674 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-208/09 Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein v. Landeshauptmann von Wien ECLI:EU:C:2010:806 . . . . . . . 412
Case C-173/09 Georgi Ivanov Elchinov v. Natsionalna zdravnoosiguritelna
kasa ECLI:EU:C:2010:581. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Case C-70/09 Alexander Hengartner and Rudolf Gasser v. Landesregierung Vorarlberg
ECLI:EU:C:2010:430 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi
ECLI:EU:C:2011:124 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 219, 254, 256
Case C-577/08 Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v. Elisabeth Brouwer ECLI:EU:C:2010:449. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Case C-569/08 Internetportal und Marketing GmbH v. Richard Schlicht
ECLI:EU:C:2010:311 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-526/08 European Commission v. Grand Duchy of Luxemburg
ECLI:EU:C:2010:379 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 86, 88
Case C-486/08 Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols v. Land Tirol
ECLI:EU:C:2010:215 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-439/08 Vlaamse federatie van verenigingen van Brood- en Banketbakkers, Ijsbereiders en
Chocoladebewerkers (VEBIC) ECLI:EU:C:2010:739 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Case C-378/08 Raffinerie Mediterranee (ERG) SpA, Polimeri Europa SpA and Syndial SpA v.
Ministero dello Sviluppo economico and Others ECLI:EU:C:2010:126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Case C-373/08 Hoesch Metals and Alloys GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Aachen ECLI:EU:C:2010:68 . . . . . . . 106
Case C-241/08 Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic
ECLI:EU:C:2010:114 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-182/08 Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co. KG v. Finanzamt München II
ECLI:EU:C:2009:559 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-160/08 Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany
ECLI:EU:C:2010:230 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-137/08 VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt. v. Ferenc Schneider ECLI:EU:C:2010:659 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Case C-135/08 Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern ECLI:EU:C:2010:104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220, 256
Case C-109/08 Commission of the European Communities v. Greece ECLI:EU:C:2009:346 . . . . . . . . 90, 93
Table of Cases xxv
Case C-46/08 Carmen Media Group Ltd v. Land Schleswig-Holstein and Innenminister des
Landes Schleswig-Holstein ECLI:EU:C:2010:505. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Case C-8/08 T-Mobile Netherlands BV, KPN Mobile NV, Orange Nederland NV and
Vodafone Libertel NV v. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit
ECLI:EU:C:2009:343 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195–9
Case C-568/07 Commission of the European Communities v. Greece
ECLI:EU:C:2009:342 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, 93–4
Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG ECLI:EU:C:2010:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Case C-550/07 P Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v. European
Commission ECLI:EU:C:2010:512 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185, 188
Joined Cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P Kingdom of Sweden and Others/API v.
European Commission ECLI:EU:C:2010:541 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Case C-505/07 Compañía Española de Comercialización de Aceite ECLI:EU:C:2009:591 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Case C-457/07 European Commission v. Portuguese Republic ECLI:EU:C:2009:531 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 82–3
Case C-427/07 Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland ECLI:EU:C:2009:457 . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Case C-416/07 Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic
ECLI:EU:C:2009:528 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-415/07 Lodato Gennero v. INPS and SCCI ECLI:EU:C:2009:220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208, 210
ECLI:EU:C:2009:428 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 90, 92–3
ECLI:EU:C:2009:247 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Case C-316/07 Markus Stoß, Avalon Service-Online-Dienste GmbH and Olaf Amadeus
Wilhelm Happel v. Wetteraukreis and Kulpa Automatenservice Asperg GmbH,
SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH and Andreas Kunert v. Land Baden-Württemberg
ECLI:EU:C:2010:504 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Joined cases C-125, 133, 135 and 137/07 P Erste Group Bank AG (C-125/07 P), Raiffeisen
Zentralbank Österreich AG (C-133/07 P), Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG (C-135/07 P)
and Österreichische Volksbanken AG (C-137/07 P) v. Commission of
the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:2009:576 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Case C-121/07 Commission v. France ECLI:EU:C:2008:695 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, 92–4
Case C-82/07 Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones v. Administración del Estado
ECLI:EU:C:2008:143 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland
ECLI:EU:C:2009:178 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 118, 120–1, 123, 127
Case C-409/06 Winner Wetten GmbH v. Bürgermeisterin der Stadt Bergheim ECLI:EU:C:
2010:503 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119–20
Case C-346/06 Dirk Rüffert v. Land Niedersachsen ECLI:EU:C:2008:189 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Joined Cases C-231/06 and C-233/06 Office national des pensions v. Emilienne Jonkman and
Hélène Vercheval ECLI:EU:C:2007:373 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82, 107
Case C-210/06 CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató bt ECLI:EU:C:2008:723 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Joined Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio
SpA (FIAMM) and Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies,
Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA and Fedon America, Inc. v. Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:2008:476. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
Case C-76/06 Britannia Alloys v. Commission of the European Communities
ECLI:EU:C:2007:326 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Case C-70/06 Commission of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic
ECLI:EU:C:2008:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 90, 92–3
Case C-445/05 Werner Haderer v. Finanzamt Wilmersdorf ECLI:EU:C:2007:344 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Case C-432/05 Unibet (London) Ltd and Unibet (International) Ltd v. Justitiekanslern
ECLI:EU:C:2007:163 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Case C-422/05 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium
ECLI:EU:C:2007:342 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Case C-380/05 Centro Europa 7 Srl v. Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità per le garanzie
nelle comunicazioni and Direzione generale per le concessioni e le autorizzazioni del
Ministero delle Comunicazioni ECLI:EU:C:2008:59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 142, 219
Case C-342/05 Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Finland
ECLI:EU:C:2007:341 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska
Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan and Svenska Elektrikerförbundet
ECLI:EU:C:2007:809 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
xxvi Table of Cases
Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others v. Conseil des
Ministres ECLI:EU:C:2007:383 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-248/05 Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland [2007] ECLI:EU:C:2007:629 . . . . . . . 73
Case C-229/05 P Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Serif Vanly,
on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v. Council of the European Union,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European
Communities ECLI:EU:C:2007:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Case C-135/05 Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic
ECLI:EU:C:2007:250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73, 84
Case C-119/05 Ministero dell’Industria, del Commercio e dell’Artigianato v. Lucchini SpA
ECLI:EU:C:2007:434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
ECLI:EU:C:2007:623 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 85
Case C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P Federal Republic of Germany and Others v. Kronofrance SA
ECLI:EU:C:2008:482 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Case C-69/05 Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxemburg
ECLI:EU:C:2006:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
ECLI:EU:C:2006:749 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 83
ECLI:EU:C:2007:432 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 86–7, 93
Case C-496/04 J Slob v. Productschap Zuivel ECLI:EU:C:2006:570 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Case C-351/04 Ikea Wholesale Ltd. v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise
ECLI:EU:C:2007:547 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Case C-344/04 The Queen, on the application of International Air Transport Association and
European Low Fares Airline Association v. Department for Transport ECLI:EU:C:2006:10. . . . . . . . 99
Joined cases C-295/04 to C-298/04 Vincenzo Manfredi v. Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni
SpA (C-295/04), Antonio Cannito v. Fondiaria Sai SpA (C-296/04) and Nicolò
Tricarico (C-297/04) and Pasqualina Murgolo (C-298/04) v. Assitalia SpA
ECLI:EU:C:2006:461 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Case C-292/04 Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde and Marina Stöffler v. Finanzamt
Bonn-Innenstadt ECLI:EU:C:2007:132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Case C-212/04 Konstantinos Adeneler and Others v. Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos
(ELOG) ECLI:EU:C:2006:443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 122, 127
Case C-180/04 Andrea Vassallo v. Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale San Martino di Genova
e Cliniche Universitarie Convenzionate ECLI:EU:C:2006:518 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
ECLI:EU:C:2006:173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 87, 89–93
Case C-167/04 JCB Service v. Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:2006:594. . . . . . . 208
ECLI:EU:C:2007:316 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-145/04 Kingdom of Spain v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
ECLI:EU:C:2006:543 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65, 506
Case C-144/04 Werner Mangold v. Rüdiger Helm ECLI:EU:C:2005:709 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101, 410
Case C-119/04 Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic ECLI:EU:
C:2006:489 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 89, 93
Case C-27/04 Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Union
ECLI:EU:C:2004:436 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177, 202
ECLI:EU:C:2005:648 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Case C-470/03 AGM-COS MET Srl v. Suomen valtio and Tarmo Lehtinen
ECLI:EU:C:2007:213 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123–7
ECLI:EU:C:2005:388 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
ECLI:EU:C:2005:134 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Case C-321/03 Dyson Ltd v. Registrar of Trade Marks ECLI:EU:C:2007:51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
ECLI:EU:C:2005:282 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-275/03 Commission of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic
ECLI:EU:C:2004:632 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table of Cases xxvii
Case C-176/03 Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European

Union ECLI:EU:C:2005:542 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Case C-168/03 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain
ECLI:EU:C:2004:525 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
ECLI:EU:C:2006:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-53/03 Syfait v. GlaxoSmithKline [2005] ECLI:EU:C:2005:333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
ECLI:EU:C:2006:253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
ECLI:EU:C:2005:511 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-377/02 Léon Van Parys NV v. Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutieburea (BIRB)
ECLI:EU:C:2005:121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
Case C-309/02 Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co. and S. Spitz KG v.
Land Baden-Württemberg ECLI:EU:C:2004:799. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
ECLI:EU:C:2005:444 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 82–3, 89–93, 95–7, 336
Case C-263/02 P Commission of the European Communities v. Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA
ECLI:EU:C:2004:210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 108–9
Joined Cases C-261/02 and 262/02 Belgische Staat v. Eugène van Calster and Felix Cleeren
and Openbaar Slachthuis NV ECLI:EU:C:2003:571 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Case C-236/02 J Slob v. Productschap Zuivel ECLI:EU:C:2004:94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-233/02 French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities
ECLI:EU:C:2004:173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Case C-222/02 Peter Paul Cornelia Sonnen-Lütte, Christel Mörkens v. Bundesrepublik
Deutschland ECLI:EU:C:2004:606 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114–16, 127
Case C-209/02 Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Austria ECLI:EU:
C:2004:61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Case C-201/02 The Queen, on the application of Delena Wells v. Secretary of State for
Transport, Local Government and the Regions ECLI:EU:C:2004:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Case C-200/02 Kunqian Catherine Zhu and Man Lavette Chen v. Secretary of State for the
Home Department ECLI:EU:C:2004:639 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Joined Cases C-189, 202, 205, 208 and 213/02 Dansk Rørindustri and others v. Commission
of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:2005:408. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96, 207–8
Case C-148/02 Carlos Garcia Avello v. Belgian State ECLI:EU:C:2003:539 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Case C-117/02 Commission of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic ECLI:EU:C:
2004:266 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterin der
Bundesstadt Bonn ECLI:EU:C:2004:614 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Case C-494/01 Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland ECLI:EU:C:2005:
250. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 67, 73–4, 76, 83–4, 89
Case C-397/01 Bernhard Pfeiffer, Wilhelm Roith, Albert Süß, Michael Winter, Klaus
Nestvogel, Roswitha Zeller and Matthias Döbele v. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband
Waldshut eV ECLI:EU:C:2004:584 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Case C-359/01 British Sugar plc v. Commission of the European Communities
ECLI:EU:C:2004:255 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Case C-278/01 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain ECLI:EU:
C:2003:635 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 90–2
Case C-243/01 Piergiorgio Gambelli and Others ECLI:EU:C:2003:597 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Case C-224/01 Gerhard Köbler v. Republik Österreich ECLI:EU:C:2003:513 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 112
Case C-207/01 Altair Chimica SpA v. ENEL Distribuzione SpA ECLI:EU:C:2003:451 . . . . . . . . . . . . 138, 210
Case C-160/01 Karen Mau v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit ECLI:EU:C:2003:280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Case C-409/00 Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European Communities
ECLI:EU:C:2003:92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
ECLI:EU:C:2002:101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Case C-242/00 Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European Communities
ECLI:EU:C:2002:380 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Case C-206/00 Henri Mouflin v. Recteur de l’académie de Reims ECLI:EU:C:2001:695 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00P, C-213/00P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P Aalborg
Portland and Others v. Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:2004:6 . . . . . . . . . . 191
xxviii Table of Cases
Case C-137/00 The Queen v. Milk Marque and National Farmers’ Union ECLI:EU:C:2003:429 . . . . . . . 185
Case C-119/00 Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
ECLI:EU:C:2001:351 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Case C-118/00 Gervais Larsy v. Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs
indépendants (INASTI) ECLI:EU:C:2001:368 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Case C-112/00 Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Republik
Österreich ECLI:EU:C:2003:333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 222
ECLI:EU:C:2002:60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council ECLI:EU:C:2002:462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Case C-15/00 Commission of the European Communities v. European Investment Bank
ECLI:EU:C:2003:396 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Case C-451/99 Cura Anlagen GmbH v. Auto Service Leasing GmbH (ASL) ECLI:EU:C:2002:195 . . . . . . . 101
ECLI:EU:C:2001:73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH
v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten ECLI:EU:C:2001:598. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Case 127/99 Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic ECLI:EU:C:2001:597 . . . . . . 84
Case C-88/99 Roquette Frères SA v. Direction des services fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais ECLI:EU:
C:2000:652 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Case C-480/98 Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European Communities
ECLI:EU:C:2000:559 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Joined Cases 466/98 and 476/98 Commission of the European Communities v. United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ECLI:EU:C:2002:624 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra AG v. Schhleswag AG, in the presence of Windpark
Reußenköge III GmbH and Land Schleswig-Holstein ECLI:EU:C:2001:160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 104
Case C-351/98 Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:
2002:530 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Case C-287/98 P SCA Holding Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities
ECLI:EU:C:2000:468 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Case C-285/98 Tanja Kreil v. Federal Republic of Germany ECLI:EU:C:2000:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
ECLI:EU:C:2000:192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-228/98 Charalampos Dounias v. Ypourgio Oikonomikon ECLI:EU:C:2000:65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
ECLI:EU:C:1999:535 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Case C-97/98 Peter Jägerskiöld v. Torolf Gustafsson ECLI:EU:C:1999:515 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
ECLI:EU:C:2000:356 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89, 90
Case C-292/97 Kjell Karlsson and Others ECLI:EU:C:2000:202 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
ECLI:EU:C:1999:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65, 69
ECLI:EU:C:1999:100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-158/97 Georg Badeck and Others, interveners: Hessische Ministerpräsident and
Landesanwalt beim Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen ECLI:EU:C:2000:163. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
ECLI:EU:C:1997:606 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
ECLI:EU:C:1998:455 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-394/96 Mary Brown v. Rentokil Ltd ECLI:EU:C:1998:331 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
ECLI:EU:C:1997:333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Case C-319/96 Brinkmann Tabakfabriken v. Skatteministeriet ECLI:EU:C:1998:429 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Case C-309/96 Daniele Annibaldi v. Sindaco del Comune di Guidonia and Presidente
Regione Lazio ECLI:EU:C:1997:631. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Case C-108/96 Criminal proceedings against Dennis Mac Quen, Derek Pouton, Carla Godts,
Youssef Antoun and Grandvision Belgium SA ECLI:EU:C:2001:67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Case C-400/95 Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark, acting on behalf
of Helle Elisabeth Larsson v. Dansk Handel & Service, acting on behalf of Føtex
Supermarked A/S ECLI:EU:C:1997:259 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
insulted her and is expected to pay damages. If a man meets his
mother-in-law coming along the road and does not recognise her,
she will fall down on the ground as a sign, when he will run away. In
the same way a father-in-law will signal to his daughter-in-law; the
whole idea being that they are unworthy to be noticed till they have
proved that they can beget children.”79.2 However, if a wife should
prove barren for three years, the rules of avoidance between the
young couple and their parents-in-law cease to be observed.79.3
Hence the custom of avoidance among these people is associated in
some way with the wife’s fertility. So among the Awemba, a Bantu
tribe of Northern Rhodesia, “if a young man sees his mother-in-law
coming along the path, he must retreat into the bush and make way
for her, or if she suddenly comes upon him he must keep his eyes
fixed on the ground, and only after a child is born may they converse
together.”79.4 Among the Angoni, another Bantu tribe of British
Central Africa, it would be a gross breach of etiquette if a man were
to enter his son-in-law’s house; he may come within ten paces of the
door, but no nearer. A woman may not even approach her son-in-
law’s house, and she is never allowed to speak to him. Should they
meet accidentally on a path, the son-in-law gives way and makes a
circuit to avoid encountering his mother-in-law face to face.79.5 Here
then we see that a man avoids his son-in-law as well as his mother-
in-law, though not so strictly.
Among the Thonga, a Bantu tribe about
The custom of Delagoa Bay, when a man meets his mother-in-
avoiding mother-in-
law and wife of law or her sister on the road, he steps out of the
wife’s brother road into the forest on the right hand side and sits
among the Thonga down. She does the same. Then they salute each
of Delagoa Bay.
other in the usual way by clapping their hands.
After that they may talk to each other. When a man is in a hut, his
mother-in-law dare not enter it, but must sit down outside without
seeing him. So seated she may salute him, “Good morning, son of
So-and-so.” But she would not dare to pronounce his name.
However, when a man has been married many years, his mother-in-
law has less fear of him, and will even enter the hut where he is and
speak to him. But among the Thonga the woman whom a man is
bound by custom to avoid most rigidly is not his wife’s mother, but
the wife of his wife’s brother. If the two meet on a path, they carefully
avoid each other; he will step out of the way and she will hurry on,
while her companions, if she has any, will stop and chat with him.
She will not enter the same boat with him, if she can help it, to cross
a river. She will not eat out of the same dish. If he speaks to her, it is
with constraint and embarrassment. He will not enter her hut, but will
crouch at the door and address her in a voice trembling with
emotion. Should there be no one else to bring him food, she will do it
reluctantly, watching his hut and putting the food inside the door
when he is absent. It is not that they dislike each other, but that they
feel a mutual, a mysterious fear.80.1 However, among the Thonga,
the rules of avoidance between connexions by marriage decrease in
severity as time passes. The strained relations between a man and
his wife’s mother in particular become easier. He begins to call her
“Mother” and she calls him “Son.” This change even goes so far that
in some cases the man may go and dwell in the village of his wife’s
parents, especially if he has children and the children are grown
up.80.2 Again, among the Ovambo, a Bantu people of German South-
West Africa, a man may not look at his future mother-in-law while he
talks with her, but is bound to keep his eyes steadily fixed on the
ground. In some cases the avoidance is even more stringent; if the
two meet unexpectedly, they separate at once. But after the
marriage has been celebrated, the social intercourse between
mother-in-law and son-in-law becomes easier on both sides.81.1
Thus far our examples of ceremonial avoidance
The custom of between mother-in-law and son-in-law have been
avoiding the
mother-in-law drawn from Bantu tribes. But in Africa the custom,
among other than though apparently most prevalent and most
the Bantu tribes of strongly marked among peoples of the great Bantu
Africa.
stock, is not confined to them. Among the Masai of
British East Africa, “mothers-in-law and their sons-in-law must avoid
one another as much as possible; and if a son-in-law enters his
mother-in-law’s hut she must retire into the inner compartment and
sit on the bed, whilst he remains in the outer compartment; they may
then talk. Own brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law must also avoid one
another, though this rule does not apply to half-brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law.”81.2 So, too, among the Bogos, a tribe on the outskirts
of Abyssinia, a man never sees the face of his mother-in-law and
never pronounces her name; the two take care not to meet.81.3
Among the Donaglas a husband after marriage “lives in his wife’s
house for a year, without being allowed to see his mother-in-law, with
whom he enters into relations only on the birth of his first son.”81.4 In
Darfur, when a youth has been betrothed to a girl, however intimate
he may have been with her parents before, he ceases to see them
until the ceremony has taken place, and even avoids them in the
street. They, on their part, hide their faces, if they happen to meet
him unexpectedly.81.5
To pass now from Africa to other parts of the
The custom of world, among the Looboos, a primitive tribe in the
avoiding relations
by marriage in tropical forests of Sumatra, custom forbids a
Sumatra and New woman to be in her father-in-law’s company and a
Guinea. man to be in his mother-in-law’s society. For
example, if a man meets his daughter-in-law, he
should cross over to the other side of the road to let her pass as far
as possible from him; but if the way is too narrow, he takes care in
time to get out of it. But no such reserve is prescribed between a
father-in-law and his son-in-law, or between a mother-in-law and her
daughter-in-law.82.1 Among the Bukaua, a Melanesian tribe of
German New Guinea, the rules of avoidance between persons
connected by marriage are very stringent; they may not touch each
other or mention each other’s names. But contrary to the usual
practice the avoidance seems to be quite as strict between persons
of the same sex as between males and females. At least the writer
who reports the custom illustrates it chiefly by the etiquette which is
observed between a man and his daughter’s husband. When a man
eats in presence of his son-in-law, he veils his face; but if
nevertheless his son-in-law should see his open mouth, the father-in-
law is so ashamed that he runs away into the wood. If he gives his
son-in-law anything, such as betel or tobacco, he will never put it in
his hand, but pours it on a leaf, and the son-in-law fetches it away. If
father-in-law and son-in-law both take part in a wild boar hunt, the
son-in-law will abstain from seizing or binding the boar, lest he
should chance to touch his father-in-law. If, however, through any
accident their hands or backs should come into contact, the father-
in-law is extremely horrified, and a dog must be at once killed, which
he gives to his son-in-law for the purpose of wiping out the stain on
his honour. If the two should ever fall out about anything, the son-in-
law will leave the village and his wife, and will stay away in some
other place till his father-in-law, for his daughter’s sake, calls him
back. A man in like manner will never touch his sister-in-law.82.2
Among the low savages of the Californian
The custom of peninsula a man was not allowed for some time to
avoiding relations
by marriage among look into the face of his mother-in-law or of his
the Indian tribes of wife’s other near relations; when these women
America. were present he had to step aside or hide
himself.83.1 Among the Indians of the Isla del
Malhado in Florida a father-in-law and mother-in-law might not enter
the house of their son-in-law, and he on his side might not appear
before his father-in-law and his relations. If they met by accident they
had to go apart to the distance of a bowshot, holding their heads
down and their eyes turned to the earth. But a woman was free to
converse with the father and mother of her husband.83.2 Among the
Indians of Yucatan, if a betrothed man saw his future father-in-law or
mother-in-law at a distance, he turned away as quickly as possible,
believing that a meeting with them would prevent him from begetting
children.83.3 Among the Arawaks of British Guiana a man may never
see the face of his wife’s mother. If she is in the house with him, they
must be separated by a screen or partition-wall; if she travels with
him in a canoe, she steps in first, in order that she may turn her back
to him.83.4 Among the Caribs “the women never quit their father’s
house, and in that they have an advantage over their husbands in as
much as they may talk to all sorts of people, whereas the husband
dare not converse with his wife’s relations, unless he is dispensed
from this observance either by their tender age or by their
intoxication. They shun meeting them and make great circuits for
that purpose. If they are surprised in a place where they cannot help
meeting, the person addressed turns his face another way so as not
to be obliged to see the person, whose voice he is compelled to
hear.”83.5 Among the Araucanian Indians of Chili a man’s mother-in-
law refuses to speak to or even to look at him during the marriage
festivity, and “the point of honour is, in some instances, carried so
far, that for years after the marriage the mother never addresses her
son-in-law face to face; though with her back turned, or with the
interposition of a fence or a partition, she will converse with him
freely.”84.1
It would be easy to multiply examples of similar
The custom of customs of avoidance between persons closely
avoiding relations
by marriage cannot connected by marriage, but the foregoing may
be separated from serve as specimens. Now in order to determine
the similar custom the meaning of such customs it is very important
of avoiding relations
by blood; both are to observe that similar customs of avoidance are
probably practised in some tribes not merely between
precautions to
prevent improper
persons connected with each other by marriage,
relations between but also between the nearest blood relations of
the sexes. different sexes, namely, between parents and
children and between brothers and sisters;84.2 and
the customs are so alike that it seems difficult or impossible to
separate them and to offer one explanation of the avoidance of
connexions by marriage and another different explanation of the
avoidance of blood relations. Yet this is what is done by some who
attempt to explain the customs of avoidance; or rather they confine
their attention wholly to connexions by marriage, or even to mothers-
in-law alone, while they completely ignore blood relations, although
in point of fact it is the avoidance of blood relations which seems to
furnish the key to the problem of such avoidances in general. The
true explanation of all such customs of avoidance appears to be, as I
have already indicated, that they are precautions designed to
remove the temptation to sexual intercourse between persons whose
marriage union is for any reason repugnant to the moral sense of the
community. This explanation, while it has been rejected by theorists
at home, has been adopted by some of the best observers of savage
life, whose opinion is entitled to carry the greatest weight.85.1
That a fear of improper intimacy even between
Mutual avoidance of the nearest blood relations is not baseless among
mother and son, of
father and daughter, races of a lower culture seems proved by the
and of brother and testimony of a Dutch missionary in regard to the
Battas or Bataks of Sumatra, a people who have
sister among the attained to a fairly high degree of barbaric
Battas.
civilization. The Battas “observe certain rules of
avoidance in regard to near relations by blood or marriage; and we
are informed that such avoidance springs not from the strictness but
from the looseness of their moral practice. A Batta, it is said,
assumes that a solitary meeting of a man with a woman leads to an
improper intimacy between them. But at the same time he believes
that incest or the sexual intercourse of near relations excites the
anger of the gods and entails calamities of all sorts. Hence near
relations are obliged to avoid each other lest they should succumb to
temptation. A Batta, for example, would think it shocking were a
brother to escort his sister to an evening party. Even in the presence
of others a Batta brother and sister feel embarrassed. If one of them
comes into the house, the other will go away. Further, a man may
never be alone in the house with his daughter, nor a mother with her
son. A man may never speak to his mother-in-law nor a woman to
her father-in-law. The Dutch missionary who reports these customs
adds that he is sorry to say that from what he knows of the Battas he
believes the maintenance of most of these rules to be very
necessary. For the same reason, he tells us, as soon as Batta lads
have reached the age of puberty they are no longer allowed to sleep
in the family house but are sent away to pass the night in a separate
building (djambon); and similarly as soon as a man loses his wife by
death he is excluded from the house.”85.2
In like manner among the Melanesians of the
Mutual avoidance of Banks’ Islands and the New Hebrides a man must
mother and son and
of brother and sister not only avoid his mother-in-law; from the time
among the when he reaches or approaches puberty and has
Melanesians. begun to wear clothes instead of running about
naked, he must avoid his mother and sisters, and
he may no longer live in the same house with them; he takes up his
quarters in the clubhouse of the unmarried males, where he now
regularly eats and sleeps. He may go to his father’s house to ask for
food, but if his sister is within he must go away before he eats; if she
is not there, he may sit down near the door and eat. If by chance
brother and sister meet in the path, she runs away or hides. If a boy,
walking on the sands, perceives footprints which he knows to be
those of his sister, he will not follow them, nor will she follow his. This
mutual avoidance lasts through life. Not only must he avoid the
persons of his sisters, but he may not pronounce their names or
even use a common word which happens to form part of any one of
their names. In like manner his sisters eschew the use of his name
and of all words which form part of it. Strict, too, is a boy’s reserve
towards his mother from the time when he begins to wear clothes,
and the reserve increases as he grows to manhood. It is greater on
her side than on his. He may go to the house and ask for food and
his mother may bring it out for him, but she will not give it to him; she
puts it down for him to take. If she calls to him to come, she speaks
to him in the plural, in a more distant manner; “Come ye,” she says,
not “Come thou.” If they talk together she sits at a little distance and
turns away, for she is shy of her grown-up son. “The meaning of all
this,” as Dr. Codrington observes, “is obvious.”86.1
Mutual avoidance of
a man and his
When a Melanesian man of the Banks’ Islands
mother-in-law marries, he is bound in like manner to avoid his
among the mother-in-law. “The rules of avoidance are very
Melanesians.
strict and minute. As regards the avoidance of the
person, a man will not come near his wife’s mother; the avoidance is
mutual; if the two chance to meet in a path, the woman will step out
of it and stand with her back turned till he has gone by, or perhaps if
it be more convenient he will move out of the way. At Vanua Lava, in
Port Patteson, a man would not follow his mother-in-law along the
beach, nor she him, until the tide had washed out the footsteps of
the first traveller from the sand. At the same time a man and his
mother-in-law will talk at a distance.”87.1
It seems obvious that these Melanesian
It is significant that customs of avoidance are the same, and must be
mutual avoidance
between blood explained in the same way whether the woman
relations of opposite whom a man shuns is his wife’s mother or his own
sexes begins at or mother or his sister. Now it is highly significant that
near puberty.
just as among the Akamba of East Africa the
mutual avoidance of father and daughter only begins when the girl
has reached puberty, so among the Melanesians the mutual
avoidance of a boy on the one side and of his mother and sisters on
the other only begins when the boy has reached or approached
puberty. Thus in both peoples the avoidance between the nearest
blood relations only commences at the dangerous age when sexual
connexion on both sides begins to be possible. It seems difficult,
therefore, to evade the conclusion that the mutual avoidance is
adopted for no other reason than to diminish as far as possible the
chances of sexual unions which public opinion condemns as
incestuous. But if that is the reason why a young Melanesian boy, on
the verge of puberty, avoids his own mother and sisters, it is natural
and almost necessary to infer that it is the same reason which leads
him, as a full-grown and married man, to eschew the company of his
wife’s mother.
Similar customs of avoidance between mothers
Mutual avoidance of and sons, between fathers and daughters, and
mother and son, of
father and daughter, between brothers and sisters are observed by the
and of brother and natives of the Caroline Islands, and the writer who
sister in the records them assigns the fear of incest as the
Caroline Islands.
motive for their observance. “The prohibition of
marriage,” he says, “and of sexual intercourse between kinsfolk of
the same tribe is regarded by the Central Caroline natives as a
divine ordinance; its breach is therefore, in their opinion, punished by
the higher powers with sickness or death. The law influences in a
characteristic way the whole social life of the islanders, for efforts are
made to keep members of families of different sexes apart from each
other even in their youth. Unmarried men and boys, from the time
when they begin to speak, may therefore not remain by night in the
huts, but must sleep in the fel, the assembly-house. In the evening
their meal (âkot) is brought thither to them by their mothers or
sisters. Only when a son is sick may his mother receive him in the
hut and tend him there. On the other hand entrance to the assembly-
house (fel) is forbidden to women and girls except on the occasion of
the pwarik festival; whereas female members of other tribes are free
to visit it, although, so far as I could observe, they seldom make use
of the permission. Unmarried girls sleep in the huts with their
parents.
“These restrictions, which custom and tradition have instituted
within the family, find expression also in the behaviour of the
members of families toward each other. The following persons,
namely, have to be treated with respect—the daughters by their
father, the sons by their mother, the brothers by their sisters. In
presence of such relations, as in the presence of a chief, you may
not stand, but must sit down; if you are obliged on narrow paths to
pass by one of them you must first obtain permission and then do it
in a stooping or creeping posture. You allow them everywhere to go
in front; you also avoid to drink out of the vessel which they have just
used; you do not touch them, but keep always at a certain distance
from them; the head especially is deemed sacred.”88.1
In all these cases the custom of mutual
Mutual avoidance of avoidance is observed by persons of opposite sex
male and female
cousins in some who, though physically capable of sexual union,
tribes. are forbidden by tradition and public opinion to
have any such commerce with each other. Thus
far the blood relations whom a man is forbidden to marry and
compelled to avoid, are his own mother, his own daughter, and his
own sisters. But to this list some people add a man’s female cousins
or at least certain of them; for many races draw a sharp line of
distinction between cousins according as they are children of two
brothers or of two sisters or of a brother and a sister, and while they
permit or even prefer marriage with certain cousins, they absolutely
forbid marriage with certain others. Now, it is highly significant that
some tribes which forbid a man to marry certain of his cousins also
compel him to adopt towards them the same attitude of social
reserve which in the same or other tribes a man is obliged to
observe towards his wife’s mother, his own mother, and his own
sisters, all of whom in like manner he is forbidden to marry. Thus
among the tribes in the central part of New Ireland
Mutual avoidance of (New Mecklenburg) a male and a female cousin,
male and female
cousins in New the children of a brother and a sister respectively,
Ireland. are most strictly forbidden by custom to marry
each other; indeed this prohibition is described as
the most stringent of all; the usual saying in regard to such relations
is, “The cousin is holy” (i tábu ra kókup). Now, in these tribes a man
is not merely forbidden to marry his female cousin, the daughter of
his father’s sister or of his mother’s brother; he must also avoid her
socially, just as in other tribes a man must avoid his wife’s mother,
his own mother, his own daughter, and his own sisters. The cousins
may not approach each other, they may not shake hands or even
touch each other, they may not give each other presents, they may
not mention each other’s names; but they are allowed to speak to
each other at a distance of some paces. These rules of avoidance,
these social barriers erected between cousins, the children of a
brother and a sister respectively, are interpreted most naturally and
simply as precautions intended to obviate the danger of a criminal
intercourse between persons whose sexual union would be regarded
by public opinion with deep displeasure. Indeed the Catholic
missionary, to whom we are indebted for the information, assumes
this interpretation of the rules as if it were too obvious to call for
serious discussion. He says that all the customs of avoidance “are
observed as outward symbols of this prohibition of marriage”; and he
adds that “were the outward sign of the prohibition of marriage, to
which the natives cleave with genuine obstinacy, abolished or even
weakened, there would be an immediate danger of the natives
contracting such marriages.”90.1 It seems difficult for a rational man
to draw any other inference. If any confirmation were needed, it
would be furnished by the fact that among these tribes of New
Ireland brothers and sisters are obliged to observe precisely the
same rules of mutual avoidance, and that incest between brother
and sister is a crime which is punished with hanging; they may not
come near each other, they may not shake hands, they may not
touch each other, they may not give each other presents; but they
are allowed to speak to each other at a distance of some paces. And
the penalty for incest with a daughter is also death by hanging.90.2
Amongst the Baganda of Central Africa in like
Mutual avoidance of manner a man was forbidden under pain of death
certain male and
female cousins to marry or have sexual intercourse with his
among the cousin, the daughter either of his father’s sister or
Baganda; marriage of his mother’s brother; and such cousins might
or sexual
intercourse not approach each other, nor hand each other
forbidden between anything, nor enter the same house, nor eat out of
these cousins under
pain of death.
the same dish. Were cousins to break these rules
of social avoidance, in other words, if they were to
approach each other or hand each other anything, it was believed
that they would fall ill, that their hands would tremble, and that they
would be unfit for any work.90.3 Here, again, the prohibition of social
intercourse was in all probability merely a precaution against sexual
intercourse, for which the penalty was death. And the same may be
said of the similar custom of avoidance which among these same
Baganda a man had to observe towards his wife’s mother. “No man
might see his mother-in-law, or speak face to face with her; she
covered her face, if she passed her son-in-law, and he gave her the
path and made a detour, if he saw her coming. If she was in the
house, he might not enter, but he was allowed to speak to her from a
distance. This was said to be because he had seen her daughter’s
nakedness. If a son-in-law accidentally saw his mother-in-law’s
breasts, he sent her a barkcloth in compensation, to cover herself,
lest some illness, such as tremor, should come upon him. The
punishment for incest was death; no member of a clan would shield
a person guilty thereof; the offender was disowned by the clan, tried
by the chief of the district, and put to death.”91.1
The prohibition of marriage with certain cousins
Marriage between appears to be widespread among African peoples
certain cousins
forbidden among of the Bantu stock. Thus in regard to the Bantus of
some South African South Africa we read that “every man of a coast
tribes but allowed tribe regarded himself as the protector of those
among others.
females whom we would call his cousins, second
cousins, third cousins, and so forth, on the father’s side, while some
had a similar feeling towards the same relatives on the mother’s side
as well, and classified them all as sisters. Immorality with one of
them would have been considered incestuous, something horrible,
something unutterably disgraceful. Of old it was punished by the
death of the male, and even now a heavy fine is inflicted upon him,
while the guilt of the female must be atoned by a sacrifice performed
with due ceremony by the tribal priest, or it is believed a curse will
rest upon her and her issue.… In contrast to this prohibition the
native of the interior almost as a rule married the daughter of his
father’s brother, in order, as he said, to keep property from being lost
to his family. This custom more than anything else created a disgust
and contempt for them by the people of the coast, who term such
intermarriages the union of dogs, and attribute to them the insanity
and idiocy which in recent times has become prevalent among the
inland tribes.”91.2
Among the Thonga, a Bantu tribe about
Marriage between Delagoa Bay, marriages between cousins are as a
cousins allowed in
some African tribes rule prohibited, and it is believed that such unions
on condition that an are unfruitful. However, custom permits cousins to
expiatory sacrifice marry each other on condition that they perform an
is offered.
expiatory ceremony which is supposed to avert the
curse of barrenness from the wife. A goat is sacrificed, and the
couple are anointed with the green liquid extracted from the half-
digested grass in the animal’s stomach. Then a hole is cut in the
goat’s skin and through this hole the heads of the cousins are
inserted. The goat’s liver is then handed to them, quite raw, through
the hole in the skin, and they must tear it out with their teeth without
using a knife. Having torn it out, they eat it. The word for liver
(shibindji) also means “patience,” “determination.” So they say to the
couple, “You have acted with strong determination. Eat the liver now!
Eat it in the full light of the day, not in the dark! It will be an offering to
the gods.” Then the family priest prays, saying: “You, our gods, So-
and-so, look! We have done it in the daylight. It has not been done
by stealth. Bless them, give them children!” When he has done
praying, the assistants take all the half-digested grass from the
goat’s stomach and place it on the wife’s head, saying, “Go and bear
children!”92.1 Among the Wagogo of German East Africa marriage is
forbidden between cousins who are the children of two brothers or of
two sisters, but is permitted between cousins who are the children of
a brother and sister respectively. However, in this case it is usual for
the wife’s father to kill a sheep and put on a leather armlet, made
presumably from the sheep’s skin; otherwise it is supposed that the
marriage would be unfruitful.92.2 Thus the Wagogo, like the Thonga,
imagine that the marriage of cousins is doomed to infertility unless
an expiatory sacrifice is offered and a peculiar use made of the
victim’s skin. Again, the Akikuyu of British East Africa forbid the
marriage of cousins and second cousins, the children and
grandchildren of brothers and sisters. If such persons married, they
would commit a grave sin, and all their children would surely die; for
the curse or ceremonial pollution (thahu) incurred by such a crime
cannot be purged away. Nevertheless it sometimes happens that a
man unwittingly marries a first or second cousin; for instance, if a
part of the family moves away to another district, it may come about
that a man makes the acquaintance of a girl and marries her before
he discovers the relationship. In such a case, where the sin has
been committed unknowingly, the curse can be averted by the
performance of an expiatory rite. The elders take a sheep and place
it on the woman’s shoulders; there it is killed and the intestines taken
out. Then the elders solemnly sever the intestines with a sharp
splinter of wood taken from a bush of a certain sort (mukeo), “and
they announce that they are cutting the clan kutinyarurira, by which
they mean that they are severing the bond of relationship which
exists between the pair. A medicine man then comes and purifies the
couple.”93.1 In all these cases we may assume with a fair degree of
probability that the old prohibition of marriage between cousins is
breaking down, and that the expiatory sacrifice offered when such a
marriage does take place is merely a salve to the uneasy conscience
of those who commit or connive at a breach of the ancient taboo.
Thus the prohibition of marriage between
The mutual cousins, and the rules of ceremonial avoidance
avoidance of male
and female cousins observed in some tribes between persons who
is probably a stand in that relationship to each other, appear
precaution against both to spring from a belief, right or wrong, in the
a criminal intimacy
between them. injurious effects of such unions and from a desire
to avoid them. The mutual avoidance of the
cousins is merely a precaution to prevent a closer and more criminal
intimacy between them. If that is so, it furnishes a confirmation of the
view that all the customs of ceremonial avoidance between blood
relations or connexions by marriage of opposite sexes are based
simply on a fear of incest.
The theory is perhaps confirmed by the
The mutual observation that in some tribes the avoidance
avoidance between
a man and his between a man and his wife’s mother lasts only
wife’s relations until he has had a child by his wife;94.1 while in
seems to be partly
grounded on a fear others, though avoidance continues longer, it
of rendering the gradually wears away with time as the man and
wife infertile.
woman advance in years,94.2 and in others, again,
it is observed only between a man and his future mother-in-law, and
comes to an end with his marriage.94.3 These customs suggest that
in the minds of the people who practise them there is a close
connexion between the avoidance of the wife’s relations and the
dread of an infertile marriage. The Indians of Yucatan, as we saw,
believe that if a betrothed man were to meet his future mother-in-law
or father-in-law, he would thereby lose the power of begetting
children. Such a fear seems to be only an extension by false analogy
of that belief in the disastrous consequences of illicit sexual relations
which we dealt with in an earlier part of this chapter,94.4 and of which
we shall have more to say presently.94.5 From thinking, rightly or
wrongly, that sexual intercourse between certain persons is fraught
with serious dangers, the savage jumped to the conclusion that
social intercourse between them may be also perilous by virtue of a
sort of physical infection acting through simple contact or even at a
distance; or if, in many cases, he did not go so far as to suppose that
for a man merely to see or touch his mother-in-law sufficed to blast
the fertility of his wife’s womb, yet he may have thought, with much
better reason, that intimate social converse between him and her
might easily lead to something worse, and that to guard against such
a possibility it was best to raise a strong barrier of etiquette between
them. It is not, of course, to be supposed that these rules of
avoidance were the result of deliberate legislation; rather they were
the spontaneous and gradual growth of feelings and thoughts of
which the savages themselves perhaps had no clear consciousness.
In what precedes I have merely attempted to sum up in language
intelligible to civilized man the outcome of a long course of moral and
social evolution.
These considerations perhaps obviate to some extent the only
serious difficulty which lies in the way of the theory here advocated.
If the custom of avoidance was adopted in order to
The mutual guard against the danger of incest, how comes it
avoidance between
persons of the that the custom is often observed towards persons
same sex was of the same sex, for example, by a man towards
probably an his father-in-law as well as towards his mother-in-
extension by false
analogy of the law? The difficulty is undoubtedly serious: the only
mutual avoidance way of meeting it that I can suggest is the one I
between persons of
different sexes.
have already indicated. We may suppose that the
deeply rooted beliefs of the savage in the fatal
effects of marriage between certain classes of persons, whether
relations by blood or connexions by marriage, gradually spread in his
mind so as to embrace the relations between men and men as well
as between men and women; till he had worked himself into the
conviction that to see or touch his father-in-law, for example, was
nearly or quite as dangerous as to touch or have improper relations
with his mother-in-law. It is no doubt easy for us to detect the flaw in
this process of reasoning; but we should beware of casting stones at
the illogical savage, for it is possible or even probable that many of
our own cherished convictions are no better founded.
Viewed from this standpoint the customs of
The custom of ceremonial avoidance among savages assume a
mutual avoidance
between near serious aspect very different from the appearance
relations has of arbitrariness and absurdity which they are apt to
probably had the present to the civilized observer who does not look
effect of checking
the practice of below the surface of savage society. So far as
inbreeding. these customs have helped, as they probably
have done, to suppress the tendency to
inbreeding, that is, to the marriage of near relations, we must
conclude that their effect has been salutary, if, as many eminent
biologists hold, long-continued inbreeding is injurious to the stock,
whether animal or vegetable, by rendering it in the end infertile.95.1
However, men of science are as yet by no means agreed as to the
results of consanguineous marriages, and a living authority on the
subject has recently closed a review of the evidence as follows:
“When we take into account such evidence as there is from animals
and plants, and such studies as those of Huth,95.2 and the instances
and counter-instances of communities with a high degree of
consanguinity, we are led to the conclusion that the prejudices and
laws of many peoples against the marriage of near kin rest on a
basis not so much biological as social.”96.1 Whatever may be the
ultimate verdict of science on this disputed question, it will not affect
the result of the present enquiry, which merely affirms the deep and
far-reaching influence which in the long course of human history
superstition has exercised on morality. Whether the influence has on
the whole been for good or evil does not concern us. It suffices for
our purpose to shew that superstition has been a crutch to morality,
whether to support it in the fair way of virtue or to precipitate it into
the miry pit of vice. To return to the point from which we wandered
into this digression, we must leave in suspense the question whether
the Australian savages were wise or foolish who forbade a man
under pain of death to speak to his mother-in-law.
I will conclude this part of my subject with a few
Other examples of more instances of the extreme severity with which
the severe
punishment of certain races have visited what they deemed
sexual crime. improper connexions between the sexes.
Among the Indians who inhabited the coast of
The Indians of Brazil near Rio de Janeiro about the middle of the
Brazil. sixteenth century, a married woman who gave
birth to an illegitimate child was either killed or
abandoned to the caprice of the young men who could not afford to
keep a wife. Her child was buried alive; for they said that were he to
grow up he would only serve to perpetuate his mother’s disgrace; he
would not be allowed to go to war with the rest for fear of the
misfortunes and disasters he might draw down upon them, and no
one would eat any food, whether venison, fish, or what not, which
the miserable outcast had touched.96.2 In Ruanda,
The natives of
Ruanda.
a district of Central Africa, down to recent years
any unmarried woman who was got with child
used to be put to death with her baby, whether born or unborn. A
spot at the mouth of the Akanyaru river was the place of execution,
where the guilty women and their innocent offspring were hurled into
the water. As usual, this Puritanical strictness of morality has been
relaxed under European influence; illegitimate children are still killed,
but their mothers escape with the fine of a cow.97.1
The Saxons.
Among the Saxons down to the days of St.
Boniface the adulteress or the maiden who had dishonoured her
father’s house was compelled to hang herself, was burned, and her
paramour hung over the blazing pile; or she was scourged or cut to
pieces with knives by all the women of the village till she was
dead.97.2 Among the Slav peoples of the Balkan
The Southern
Slavs.
peninsula women convicted of immoral conduct
used to be stoned to death. About the year 1770 a
young betrothed couple were thus executed near Cattaro in
Dalmatia, because the girl was found to be with child. The youth
offered to marry her, and the priest begged that the sentence of
death might be commuted to perpetual banishment; but the people
declared that they would not have a bastard born among them; and
the two fathers of the luckless couple threw the first stones at them.
When Miss M. Edith Durham related this case to some Montenegrin
peasantry, they all said that in the old days stoning was the proper
punishment for unchaste women; the male paramours were shot by
the relations of the girls whom they had seduced. When “that
modern Messalina,” Queen Draga of Servia, was murdered, a
decent peasant woman remarked that “she ought to be under the
cursed stone heap” (pod prokletu gomilu). The country-folk of
Montenegro, who heard the news of the murder from Miss Durham,
“looked on it as a cleansing—a casting out of abominations—and
genuinely believed that Europe would commend the deed, and that
the removal of this sinful woman would bring prosperity to the
land.”97.3 Even down to the second half of the nineteenth century in
cases of seduction among the Southern Slavs the people proposed
to stone both the culprits to death.98.1 This happened, for example, in
Herzegovina in the year 1859, when a young man named Milutin
seduced or (to be more exact) was seduced by three unmarried girls
and got them all with child. The people sat in judgment upon the
sinners, and, though an elder proposed to stone them all, the court
passed a milder sentence. The young man was to marry one of the
girls, to rear the infants of the other two as his legitimate children,
and next time there was a fight with the Turks he was to prove his
manhood by rushing unarmed upon the enemy and wresting their
weapons from them, alive or dead. The sentence was fulfilled to the
letter, though many years passed before the culprit could carry out
the last part of it. However, his time came in 1875, when
Herzegovina revolted against the Turks. Then Milutin ran unarmed
upon a regiment of the enemy and found among the Turkish
bayonets a hero’s death.98.2 Even now the Old Catholics among the
South Slavs believe that a village in which a seducer is not
compelled to marry his victim will be punished with hail and
excessive rain. For this article of faith, however, they are ridiculed by
their enlightened Catholic neighbours, who hold the far more
probable view that thunder and lightning are caused by the village
priest to revenge himself for unreasonable delays in the payment of
his salary. A heavy hail-storm has been known to prove almost fatal
to the local incumbent, who was beaten within an inch of his life by
his enraged parishioners.98.3
It is difficult to believe that in these and similar
Inference from the cases the community would inflict such severe
severe punishments
inflicted for sexual punishment for sexual offences if it did not believe
offences. that its own safety, and not merely the interest of a
few individuals, was imperilled thereby.
If now we ask why illicit relations between the
Why should illicit sexes should be supposed to disturb the balance
relations between
the sexes be of nature and particularly to blast the fruits of the
thought to disturb earth, a partial answer may be conjecturally
the balance of suggested. It is not enough to say that such
nature?
relations are displeasing to the gods, who punish
indiscriminately the whole community for the sins of a few. For we
must always bear in mind that the gods are creations of man’s fancy;
he fashions them in human likeness, and endows them with tastes
and opinions which are merely vast cloudy projections of his own. To
affirm, therefore, that something is a sin because the gods will it so,
is only to push the enquiry one stage farther back and to raise the
further question, Why are the gods supposed to dislike and punish
these particular acts? In the case with which we
The reason why the are here concerned, the reason why so many
gods of savages
are supposed to savage gods prohibit adultery, fornication, and
punish sexual incest under pain of their severe displeasure may
crimes so severely
may perhaps be perhaps be found in the analogy which many
found in a mistaken savage men trace between the reproduction of the
belief that human species and the reproduction of animals
irregularities of the
human sexes and plants. The analogy is not purely fanciful, on
prevent the the contrary it is real and vital; but primitive
reproduction of peoples have given it a false extension in a vain
edible animals and
plants and thereby attempt to apply it practically to increasing the food
supply. They have imagined, in fact, that by
strike a fatal blow at
the food supply. performing or abstaining from certain sexual acts
they thereby directly promoted the reproduction of
animals and the multiplication of plants.99.1 All such acts and
abstinences, it is obvious, are purely superstitious and wholly fail to
effect the desired result. They are not religious but magical; that is,
they compass their end, not by an appeal to the gods, but by
manipulating natural forces in accordance with certain false ideas of
physical causation. In the present case the principle on which
savages seek to propagate animals and plants is that of magical
sympathy or imitation: they fancy that they assist the reproductive
process in nature by mimicking or performing it among themselves.
Now in the evolution of society such efforts to control the course of
nature directly by means of magical rites appear to have preceded
the efforts to control it indirectly by appealing to the vanity and
cupidity, the good-nature and pity of the gods; in short, magic seems
to be older than religion.100.1 In most races, it is true, the epoch of
unadulterated magic, of magic untinged by religion, belongs to such
a remote past that its existence, like that of our ape-like ancestors,
can be a matter of inference only; almost everywhere in history and
the world we find magic and religion side by side, at one time allies,
at another enemies, now playing into each other’s hands, now
cursing, objurgating, and vainly attempting to exterminate one
another. On the whole the lower intelligences cling closely, though
secretly, to magic, while the higher intelligences have discerned the
vanity of its pretensions and turned to religion instead. The result has
been that beliefs and rites which were purely magical in origin often
contract in course of time a religious character; they are modified in
accordance with the advance of thought, they are translated into
terms of gods and spirits, whether good and beneficent, or evil and
malignant. We may surmise, though we cannot prove, that a change
of this sort has come over the minds of many races with regard to
sexual morality. At some former time, perhaps, straining a real
analogy too far, they believed that those relations of the human
sexes which for any reason they regarded as right and natural had a
tendency to promote sympathetically the propagation of animals and
plants and thereby to ensure a supply of food for the community;
while on the contrary they may have imagined that those relations of
the human sexes which for any reason they deemed wrong and
unnatural had a tendency to thwart and impede the propagation of
animals and plants and thereby to diminish the common supply of
food.
Such a belief, it is obvious, would furnish a
Such a belief would sufficient motive for the strict prohibition of what
account both for the
horror with which were deemed improper relations between men
many savages and women; and it would explain the deep horror
regard such crimes, and detestation with which sexual irregularities are
and for the severity
with which they viewed by many, though certainly not by all,
punish them. savage tribes. For if improper relations between
the human sexes prevent animals and plants from
multiplying, they strike a fatal blow at the existence of the tribe by
cutting off its supply of food at the roots. No wonder, therefore, that
wherever such superstitions have prevailed the whole community,
believing its very existence to be put in jeopardy by sexual
immorality, should turn savagely on the culprits, and beat, burn,
drown or otherwise exterminate them in order to rid itself of so
dangerous a pollution. And when with the advance of knowledge
men began to perceive the mistake they had made in imagining that
the commerce of the human sexes could affect the propagation of
animals and plants, they would still through long habit be so inured
to the idea of the wickedness of certain sexual relations that they
could not dismiss it from their minds, even when they discerned the
fallacious nature of the reasoning by which they had arrived at it. The
old practice would therefore stand, though the old theory had fallen:
the old rules of sexual morality would continue to be observed, but if
they were to retain the respect of the community, it was necessary to

Textbook The Enforcement of Eu Law and Values Ensuring Member States Compliance 1St Edition Jakab Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook The Enforcement of Eu Law and Values Ensuring Member States Compliance 1St Edition Jakab Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The enforcement of EU law and values :

ensuring member states' compliance

Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights In The EU

EU Citizens in the European Public Sphere: An Analysis

Harmonisation of EU Competition Law Enforcement Jurgita

The Changing Administrative Law of an EU Member State:

Unpacking EU Policy-Making towards China: How Member

Pharmaceutical Compliance and Enforcement Answer Book

The Politics of Online Copyright Enforcement in the EU:

External Energy Security in the European Union Small

List of Abbreviations xvii

13. A Democracy Commission of One’s Own, or What it would take

III. COMPARATIVE O UTLOOK

List of Abbreviations xvii

2. On the Legal Enforcement of Values. The Importance of the

3. Pluralism and Systemic Deﬁance in the EU 44

4. Failures concerning directives 70

5. Making Effective Use of Article 260 TFEU 79

7. Francovich Enforcement Analysed and Illustrated by German

9. Compliance and Enforcement in Economic Policy Coordination in EMU 145

13. A Democracy Commission of One’s Own, or What it would take

14. Application of the EU CFR by National Courts in Purely

III. COMPARATIVE O UTLOOK

18. Enforcement of National Law against Subnational Units in the US 316

20. Enforcing WTO Law 341

3. The outcomes and aftermath of the Empty Chair crisis 432

26. Challenging the Basic Values—Problems in the Rule of Law in

27. Weak Members and the Enforcement of EU Law 476

28. Inside but Out? The UK and the EU 493

ACP African, Caribbean, and Paciﬁc

xviii List of Abbreviations

EUSA European Union Studies Association

List of Abbreviations xix

SICA Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana (Central American

List of Contributors xxi

Jan-Werner Müller is a Professor of Politics at Princeton University.

SUPRANATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COURTS

Table of Cases xxiii

Case C-288/12 European Commission v. Hungary ECLI:EU:C:2014:237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75, 257, 467

xxiv Table of Cases

Table of Cases xxv

xxvi Table of Cases

Table of Cases xxvii

Case C-176/03 Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European

xxviii Table of Cases

You might also like