European Union Law - Foundations IER 3006 2023-24final-1

Academic Year 2023/2024
Syllabus
European Union Law: Foundations

EU Institutional Law
IER 3006
Course coordinator: Prof. Dr. Andrea Ott

Academic Year 2023/2024
Syllabus
European Union Law: Foundations

EU Institutional Law
1. Introduction and Course objectives
The objectives of the course “European Union Law: Foundations – EU institutional law”
are:
1. To provide students thorough knowledge and understanding of the legal-

constitutional foundations of the EU and its institutions, and more specifically of:
▪ The Treaties as the ‘constitutional charter’ of the Union;

▪ The EU institutions and their horizontal relationships, based on the principle
of ‘institutional balance’
▪ Legal and institutional principles guiding the relationship among EU
institutions and its Member States
▪ The key principles governing law-making at the EU level, including questions
of competences and decision-making procedures;
▪ The key principles governing the enforcement of EU law at EU and national
level, including the interaction between EU and national law;
▪ The main mechanisms for judicial protection and the role of national courts
in the EU legal system;
▪ The system of EU fundamental rights protection;
▪ Mechanisms of differentiated integration in the EU legal and political order.
2. To give students an insight into the functioning of the EU and its institutions in
(political) practice.
3. To improve students’ analytical and critical skills
This course builds on the previous module, ‘Introduction to International and European
Law’ (ELS Year 1), where students have already studied the basic rules regarding the
functioning of the EU institutions, the competences and decision-making, and the judicial
protection and enforcement. Students who have never followed EU law courses before
are nonetheless very much welcome to participate to the course, and are invited to
acquaint themselves with those basic concepts of EU law before the relevant weeks of the
course.
1
In terms of teaching methods, the course comprises:
a) 1 recorded introductory lecture and 7 live lectures: every Tuesday between 11.00
to 13.00, Franz Palm Lecture Hall, SBE. In the first week, exceptionally, the lecture
must be scheduled from 18.15 to 20.15.
b) 7 tutorials on Thursdays or Fridays (check your timetable).
All the latest relevant and updated information concerning this course will be posted on
Canvas. Please consult Canvas regularly!
Trained skills and Dublin descriptors (and final qualifications)
Students will acquire the following building blocks of their final bachelor qualifications
when successfully completing the course:1
• Dublin descriptor 1:
Participants will have acquired knowledge about the political and legal dimension of the
EU integration process. They will understand the basics of law and EU law (legal
terminology, legal sources and orders, characteristics of the EU legal order) and are able
to reflect on the differences of concepts between international, EU law and national law.
Participants will have gained new insights into how to apply their knowledge and
understanding of EU law to identify specific problems, form coherent arguments, and
develop problem-focused interpretations (both orally and in writing). They will be able
to apply their abstract knowledge acquired through lectures and readings on different
cases and come to a balanced and argued conclusion.
Participants will gain experience in gathering and interpreting legal information acquired
from legislation, literature and case law that will help them to develop a deeper
understanding of the EU integration process and political and legal problems arising in
the European Union polity. They will improve their writing and argumentation skills from
a legal perspective during the course through weekly written assignments.
Participants will have become more skillful in communicating legal concepts and ideas to
their peers.
1
This summary of competences is based on the so-called “Dublin Descriptors” (see: www.jointquality.org
). This set of criteria has been developed to allow standardised descriptions of the qualification profile of
different programs. The final qualifications for the BA ELS are outlined in the curriculum catalogue.
2
Participants will thereby have further developed learning skills that will prepare them for
their final Bachelor Paper as well as for future academic education at the Masters’ level.
2. Course structure and teaching
The course comprises 8 lectures and 7 tutorial meetings. Each week discusses one or more
institutional questions of EU law, often against the background of the broader political,
societal and economic context.
2.1 Lectures
The lectures will adopt an interactive format, so it is warmly recommended that you join
us in person. If you cannot be there, recordings will be made available on Canvas one or
two days after the lecture, though it might be that they will not be able to capture all
interactions that have taken place during the lecture.
The lectures touch upon the key aspects of the topic in question, present issues that may
not be included in the reading materials and provide the basis for the preparation of the
assignments to be discussed in the tutorial meetings. The lectures form an integral part of
the course, which means also that all topics and materials discussed in the lectures can in
principle, be part of the final examination.
2.2. Tutorial Meetings
During the tutorial, the students will be asked to discuss the solutions to the questions
posed in the syllabus. Each tutorial will have to be prepared thoroughly.
Tutorials include both case studies and open questions. In order to solve them, you can
(and should!) attend the lectures, consult the textbook, identify and study relevant case
law, at times do some independent research, and most importantly, always think and
reflect on the subjects covered in the case studies and open questions. Do not shy away
from critical and independent analysis, especially when the syllabus invites you to do so.
Students have to prepare three assignments (in weeks 2, 4 and 5) in a written form, which
will have to be submitted via Canvas (see further below under “Assignments”). As will
be explained below under ‘Assessment’, if a student successfully and timely submits all
three assignments, and the graded assignment is evaluated positively (on a pass/fail
basis), the student will gain a 1 bonus point added to the exam grade (before rounding-
up).
During the course, you will also work on and strengthen your ability to identify and study
relevant decisions and understand and analyse their relevance. Of course, the syllabus
includes a summary of important case law, the textbook and the lectures will give you
3
‘hints’ on the fundamental cases on which you need to concentrate, and at times, the
syllabus will invite you to read a judgment in full.
Week Topic Assignment

Introduction to the course (online
1 recording)
The Foundations of the European Union –

the Treaties and the EU Institutional
Structure
First assignment
2 Law-making I: Competences and the
Legislative Process Deadline: Thursday 9
November 2023, at h 8.00
3 Law-making II: Sources, Delegation and

the Union’s External Relations
Second assignment
4 Enforcement and Judicial Protection I:
The Role of National Courts Deadline: Thursday 23
Third assignment
5 Enforcement and Judicial Protection II:
The Role of the Court of Justice Deadline: Thursday 30
6 EU Fundamental Rights and EU Values
7 Reforming and enlarging the European

Union?
3. Course Assessment
The assessment consists of a final exam with three written questions (each worth 1/3 of
the final grade). In addition, students can gain a 1 bonus point (added to the exam grade
before rounding up) by submitting three completed written assignments, as long as the
assignment selected for grading is assessed positively.
4
3.1 Final exam
The final exam will take place in week 8 of period 2 and will be a 3-hour in person written
exam. It will include three questions, which may include both ‘case studies’ and general
questions, similar (but not identical!) to those you can find in the book.
At the exam you are authorised to bring and use:

- (annotated) copies of the Treaties (a printed version or a collection such as the
Maastricht Collection or the Blackstone’s);
- printed copies of CJEU judgments and of relevant EU legislation;
- lecture slides;
- and your personal notes.
You are not authorised to bring the main textbook, the syllabus or other additional
readings.
3.2 Written assignments
In weeks 2, 4 and 5 you will be asked to submit a written assignment. These written
assignments should take the form of a legal opinion; they should be well-researched, well-
structured and brief (max 2000 words excluding footnotes). On the front page, the
students have to clearly indicate their name, their student number, the name of their tutor,
the number of the tutorial group and the number of words used in the assignment.
In order to solve the legal problems contained in the assignments, please proceed
accordingly:
- read the relevant sections of the textbook;
- identify and apply the relevant Treaty articles and any other relevant rules that
implement the Treaties;
- look for additional literature if the textbook does not cover all matters of the
assignment;
- identify any relevant case-law with the help of the textbook and the lecture but
also by using the search engines of http://curia.europa.eu or http://eur-
lex.europa.eu;
The assignment papers must be submitted via Canvas under ‘Assignments’. The deadlines
are the same for all students and have been set as follows:
- Week 2: Thursday 9 November 2023, at h 8.00

5
Students have to hand all three written assignments to qualify for the bonus point. These
written assignments have to be properly submitted assignments (so no empty pages, no
plagiarism and all questions have to be answered with sufficient references to case law
when necessary)
Failure to submit any of the three assignment papers in time, not at all, or insufficiently
(empty page or comparable situation) will result in no bonus point, even if the student
submitted the other two assignments.
The assignment papers must be original and individual work. Each student must write
their own legal opinion and submit it individually via Canvas.
Special software will be applied to identify plagiarism and “collective papers”. Assignment
papers that are not original or individual work will be considered as not submitted and
result in a fail for the assignment paper.
At the end of the course, one of the three assignments will be selected for grading on
a pass/fail basis. Students who receive a pass will be granted 1 bonus point, added to
the final exam grade (before rounding up in the usual manner).
6
Written 1. Case 2. Case 3. General
assignments question
Percenta For handing in 40 percent of 40 percent of 20 percent of
ge of three out of the overall the overall the overall
overall three written grade grade grade
grade assignments 1
points extra 0 to 10 points 0 to 10 points 0 to 10 points
added to the
overall grade
All three
assignments
handed in and
sufficiently
answered with
one
assignment
graded for
pass or fail
Grade Fail (0 points) 0 to 10 points 0 to 10 points 0 to 10 points
or pass (+ 1
point)
4. Course Materials
4.1 Basic Materials
Preparation for the tutorial meetings will involve, depending on the subject, the thorough
analysis of relevant provisions in the TFEU and TEU, legislation, case law, and the study
of the recommended literature.
The main textbook used in the course is:
Catherine Barnard and Steve Peers, EU law, 4th edn 2023
You may decide to use other textbooks (such as Craig and de Búrca or Schütze), but if you
do so it will be your responsibility to identify the relevant readings and make sure you are
not missing essential parts of the materials covered in the Barnard & Peers textbook.
• EU Treaties (Blackstone legislation, Maastricht Collection or any printed copy of

Treaties text)), (obligatory,
• Essential EU law in charts by Tobler and Beglinger, 2020 (additional recommendation)
7
4.2 Further Materials
If necessary, other materials will be indicated on the Student Portal for each theme
separately.
At times, you will be asked to conduct independent research on certain topics or CJEU
decisions. You may consult other textbooks available at the library, online journals, and
blogs.
Some of the leading journals in the field of EU law are the following:
- Common Market Law Review (CMLR)

- European Law Review (ELR)
- European Constitutional Law Review (EuConst)
- Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (MJ)
- Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS)
There also a few blogs / online platforms that it might be worth checking out at times:
- Verfassungsblog: https://verfassungsblog.de
- EULawLive: https://eulawlive.com
- EU Law Analysis: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com
- European Law Blog: https://europeanlawblog.eu
Many relevant materials are also available on the Internet:
- The main portal to the institutions of the European Union contains an abundance
of information, at http://europa.eu. It is useful to explore the many links available
there.
- In addition, you may consult the website of the European Parliament and of the
Council, at www.europarl.europa.eu and www.consilium.europa.eu respectively.
- Judgments of the Court of Justice and of the General Court are available, usually
from the day they are delivered, on the website of the Court of Justice of the EU at
http://curia.europa.eu. If a judgment is not available under this link, please check
under the link’ numerical access to case law’.
- The Official Journal of the European Union is available in full text from the date of
publication on the EUR-Lex website at http://eur-lex.europa.eu. In addition, the
EUR-Lex website contains a database of EU legislation in force (i.e. regulations,
directives, decisions and other significant documents) and of preparatory
documents put forward by the Commission (the COM series).
- www.euractiv.com and www.euobserver.com, daily updated information services
on the European Union.
- https://www.politico.eu is an electronic newspaper with a focus on EU politics.
8
5. Course Team
Andrea Ott, coordinator and tutor
a.ott@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Job van Bekhoven, tutor

Job.vanbekhoven@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Chloé-Emmeline Garrier, tutor

c.garrier-piantkiwskyj@student.maastrichtuniversity.nl
Moramay Koomen, tutor

m.koomen@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Jakob Piep, tutor

Jakob.piep@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Ilaria Piovesan, tutor

ilaria.piovesan@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Michelle Scheffers, tutor

m.scheffers@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Gilles Vandeweyer, tutor

Gilles.vanderweyer@maastrichtuniversity.nl
9
6. Selection of important case law
Below you find a list of important case law addressed during the course in lectures and
tutorials.
European law as a new legal order of international law (autonomous legal order,
direct effect and supremacy)
Case 26/62, Van Gend & Loos, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1 (autonomous legal order - direct effect
of primary law)
Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66 (EU primary and secondary law takes
precedence over colliding national law)
Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, ECLI:EU:C:1970:114 (EU law takes

primacy over national constitutional law)
Case 106/77, Simmenthal, ECLI:EU:C:1978:49 (primacy over prior and subsequent

national law)
Case 294/83, Les Verts v. European Parliament, ECLI:EU:C:1986:166 (EEC Treaty (EU
Treaty) as a constitutional charter with a complete system of legal remedies)
Choice of a legal basis
Case C-338/01, Recovery of Indirect Taxes (Commission v. Council), ECLI:EU:C:2004:253

(the legal basis should be chosen based on objective factors amenable to judicial review)
Case 300/89, Titanium Dioxide (Commission v. Council), ECLI:EU:C:1991:244 (dual basis

is not possible where the procedures provided for each legal basis are incompatible; legal
basis should be chosen based on objective factors amenable to judicial review)
C-376/98, Tobacco Advertising (Germany v. Parliament and Council), ECLI:EU:C:2000:544

(limits in relying on Article 114 TFEU)
Institutional principles and fundamental principles (human rights protection)
Case C-58/08, Vodafone (Vodafone Ltd and Others v Secretary of State for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) ECLI:EU:C:2010:321 (principle of subsidiarity of
Article 5 TEU)
Case 9/56, Meroni (Meroni & Co v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel
Community) ECLI:EU:C:1958:7 (institutional balance under Article 13.2 TFEU)
10
Case 29/69, Stauder (Erich Stauder v Stadt Ulm – Sozialamt) ECLI:EU:C:1969:57
(fundamental human rights are part of EU law since they form part of the general
principles of EU law)
Case 4/73, Nold (Nold v Commission) ECLI:EU:C:1974:51 (fundamental human rights are
part of EU law since they form part of the shared national constitutional traditions on
which the EU is based)
Case 36/75, Rutili (Rutili v Ministre de l'intérieu) ECLI:EU:C:1975:137 (exceptions on

fundamental EU rules must comply with all other EU rules, especially the principle of non-
discrimination)
Note: the importance of case law diminished because of Article 6 TEU and binding EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights
Direct and indirect effect
Direct effect of Union law - individuals can rely on Community law to their advantage in
courts; Conditions of direct effect depending on legal source:
Case 32/84, Van Gend and Loos (Van Gend & Loos NV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en
Accijnzen) ECLI:EU:C:1985:104 (primary law may have direct effect; general conditions
for direct effect: clear, precise and unconditional)
Case 93/71, Leonesio (Leonesio v Ministero dell'agricoltura e foreste) ECLI:EU:C:1972:39

(regulations may have direct effect + conditions: clear, precise and unconditional)
Case 8/81, Becker (Ursula Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt) ECLI:EU:C:1982:7

(directives may have direct effect + conditions: not implemented in time - clear, precise
and unconditional + vertical relationship)
Case 41/74, Van Duyn (Van Duyn v Home Office) ECLI:EU:C:1974:133 (directives may
have direct effect + conditions: not implemented in time - clear, precise and unconditional
+ vertical relationship)
Case C-62/00, Marks and Spencer (Marks & Spencer plc v Commissioners of Customs &
Excise) ECLI:EU:C:2002:435 (possibility of direct effect for directives when the directive
is incorrectly transposed in national law or when it is correctly transposed but incorrectly
applied)
Case 148/78, Ratti (Criminal proceedings against Ratti) ECLI:EU:C:1979:110 (estoppel

principle argument for vertical direct effect of directives)
Case C-91/92, Faccini Dori (Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl) ECLI:EU:C:1994:292
(no horizontal direct effect of non-transposed or wrongly transposed directives)
11
Case C-188/89, Foster (Foster and others v British Gas plc) ECLI:EU:C:1990:313
(public service under the control of the State also emanation of the State, hence vertical
direct effect of directives possible)
Case C-413/15, Farrell (Farrell v Alan Whitty and Others) ECLI:EU:C:2017:745

(clarification of Foster: it is sufficient that the private body concerned has special powers
beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between
individuals; no need, additionally, to be a body under control of the State)
Case C-122/17, Smith (Smith v Meade) ECLI:EU:C:2018:631 (recapitulation of the rules

governing direct effect of directives)
Case 9/70, Grad (Franz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein) ECLI:EU:C:1970:78 (possible direct
effect of decisions + conditions: clear, precise and unconditional, addressee)
Case C-16/16P Belgium v. Commission (online gambling services), ECLI:EU:C:2018:79,

(questions whether soft law acts are intended to produce binding effect, and though
Article 263 TFEU excludes the review, by the Court, of acts which are in the form of
recommendations, Article 267 TFEU confers on the Court jurisdiction to deliver a
preliminary ruling on the validity and interpretation of all acts of the EU institutions
without exception)
Direct effect, vertical and horizontal of primary law
Case 43/75, Defrenne v Sabena (Defrenne v Sabena) ECLI:EU:C:1976:56 (Art 157 TFEU has
direct effect in cases of open discrimination)
Case C-376/98, Bosman (URBSFA v Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Bosman and others
and UEFA v Bosman) ECLI:EU:C:1995:463 (Article 45 TFEU may have horizontal direct
effect if invoked at private rules aimed at regulating gainful employment in a collective
manner)
Cases C-144/04 Mangold and Case C-555/07 Kücüdeveci (general principles of law are
applicable in horizontal relationships without any limitations)
Lack of horizontal effect of non-implemented Directive

Case 152/84, Marshall (Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health
Authority) ECLI:EU:C:1986:84 (no horizontal direct effect of directives)
Case C-91/92, Faccini Dori (Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl) ECLI:EU:C:1994:292 (no horizontal
direct effect of directives)
12
Extension of the definition of State
Case C-188/89, Foster (Foster and others v British Gas plc) ECLI:EU:C:1990:313
(public service under the control of the State and granted special powers also emanation
of the State, hence vertical direct effect)
Clarification in Farrell (C-413/15 ECLI:EU:C:2017:745): “any organisation or body which
is subject to the authority or control of the State or has special powers beyond those which
result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals. “
Indirect effect or duty of consistent interpretation

Case 14/83, Von Colson (von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen)
ECLI:EU:C:1984:153 (indirect effect of wrongly implemented directives)
Case C-106/89, Marleasing (Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion

SA) ECLI:EU:C:1990:395 (indirect effect of non-implemented directives)
When does the duty of consistent interpretation start?

Case C-212/04, Adeneler (Adeneler and Others v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos)
ECLI:EU:C:2006:443 (transposition period of the directive expired)
State liability
Joined cases C-6 and 9/90, Francovich (Francovich and Bonifaci and others v Italian
Republic) ECLI:EU:C:1991:428 (possibility of state liability for non-implementation of
directive + conditions for such liability)
Joined cases C-24 and 48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur/Factortame (Brasserie du Pêcheur SA

v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte:
Factortame Ltd and others) ECLI:EU:C:1996:79 (generalization of state liability for
breaches of EU law + conditions for such liability)
Case C-224/01, Köbler (Köbler v Austria) ECLI:EU:C:2003:513 (confirmation of state

liability for breaches of EU law by the judicial branch)
Joined case C-178, 179, 188, 189, 190/94, Dillenkofer (Dillenkofer and others v Germany)
ECLI:EU:C:1996:375 (non-implementation of a directive is always manifest breach)
Legal Protection
Preliminary rulings
Case 283/81, CILFIT (Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health)
ECLI:EU:C:1982:335 (exceptions to the obligation of highest national courts under Article
267 TFEU to refer preliminary questions: acte éclairé and acte clair doctrine), further
clarification by C-561/19 Conzorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi
13
Case 314/85, Foto-Frost (Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost) ECLI:EU:C:1987:452
(national courts cannot on their own declare EU law invalid)
Case C-224/01, Köbler (Köbler v Austria) ECLI:EU:C:2003:513 (remedies under EU law

for non-reference judges and wrong decisions last instance)
Infringement procedure
Case 247/87, Star Fruit (Star Fruit Company SA v Commission) ECLI:EU:C:1989:58
(Commission has no obligation to act, but discretion to act),
Case 48/65, Lütticke (Lütticke GmbH v Commission) ECLI:EU:C:1966:8 (Commission has

no obligation to act, but discretion to act)
Case C-350/02, Commission v. Netherlands (Commission v Netherlands)

ECLI:EU:C:2004:389 (there must be coherence between the letter of formal notice and the
reasoned opinion)
Case C-1/00 Commission v France (Commission v France) ECLI:EU:C:2001:687

(Commission must afford Member States reasonable time limits for complying with letter
formal notice and reasoned opinion)
Case C-416/17, Commission v. France, EU:C:2018:811 (the failure of a national court of

last resort to refer a case to the ECJ was considered an infringement by France)
Direct actions
Pre-Lisbon:
Case 25/62, Plaumann (Plaumann & Co. v Commission) ECLI:EU:C:1963:17 (Plaumann
doctrine – on individual concern of non-privileged applicants under Article 263 TFEU)
Case T-177/01, Jégo-Quéré (Jégo-Quéré et Cie SA v Commission) ECLI:EU:T:2002:112 (GC

reconsiders the Plaumann doctrine)
Case 263/02 P, Jégo-Quéré (Commission v Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA) ECLI:EU:C:2004:210 (ECJ
re-established the Plaumann doctrine and thus gave a final answer on its interpretation)
Case C-309/89, Codorníu (Codorníu SA v Council) ECLI:EU:C:1994:197 (legislative acts,

which are applicable to persons in general, can nevertheless be of individual concern to
specific people)
Case C-50/00 P, UPA (Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council) ECLI:EU:C:2002:462 (ECJ

again confirms strict Plaumann doctrine)
14
Post-Lisbon:
Case T-18/10, Inuit (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami e.a. v European Parliament and Council)
ECLI:EU:T:2011:419 (confirmed by C-583/11P- Grand chamber [2013]) (definition of
regulatory act in the sense of Article 263 TFEU)
Case T-262/10, Microban (Microban International Ltd and Microban (Europe) Ltd v
Commission) ECLI:EU:T:2011:623 (definition of direct concern + implementing measures
in relation to regulatory act in the sense of Article 263 TFEU)
Case C-274/12 P, Telefónica (Telefónica SA v Commission) ECLI:EU:C:2013:852 (definition

of regulatory act which does not entail further implementing measures by EU and national
authorities)
Case C-456/13 P, T & L Sugars (T & L Sugars Ltd and others v Commission)
ECLI:EU:C:2015:284 (definition of regulatory act and how to address direct (automatic
and merely ancillary) and individual concern)
Case C-348/20P (Nordstream 2 v Parliament and Council) ECLI:EU:C:2022:548 (direct

concern in case of a directive, question whethere MS have room to manoeuvre in
transposing the specific provisions and whether it actually affects the applicant’s legal
situation
Union liability
Case C-352/98 P, Bergaderm (Laboratoires pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA l v
Commission) ECLI:EU:C:2000:361 (conditions for union liability are the same as those for
state liability + conditions: manifest error, breach of superior rule of law and causal link)
Rule of law crisis

Case C-64/16 Portuguese judges EU:C:2018:117 (joint function of EU court and national
courts to ensure the observance of EU law, effective judicial protection of individuals’
rights is a general principle of EU law (Art.19 TEU and Art.47 Charter) and Member States
have to ensure that courts or tribunals meet the requirements of judicial protection (the
body is established by law, is permanent, jurisdiction is compulsory, procedure is inter
pares and it applies the rule of law and is independent) The concept of independence
presupposed that the court or tribunal exercises its judicial functions wholly
autonomously, without being subject to hierarchical constraint or subordinated to any
other body and without takin orders or instructions from any source whatsoever, and it
is thus protected against external interventions or pressure liable to impair the
independent judgment of its members and to influence their decisions.
15
Week 1: The Foundations of the European Union – the Treaties and the
EU institutional structure
Description
In an online recording, students will be introduced to the course’s main features and the
Treaties’ evolution and structure. The first live lecture is devoted to the ‘foundations’ of
the European Union: the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union, which, together with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, work as
the ‘constitutional charter’ of the Union. We will reflect together on the ‘rules of change’,
namely the procedures for revision of the Treaties as well as the rules for accession and
withdrawal of Member States. In addition, we will also focus on the institutional structure
of the EU.
Literature
From Barnard & Peers, European Union Law:

- Chapter 2: P Craig, ‘Development of the EU’
- Chapter 3: S Peers, ‘The EU’s political institutions’
1.1 Case study: How to Europeanise European elections

In spring 2024, a new European Parliament (EP) will be elected. The EP has gained
political and legislative powers in continuous Treaty revision processes. According to
Article 17 (7) TEU, the Commission President is elected by the Parliament by a majority
of the component Members in a process in which the European Council, acting by qualified
majority and taking into account the elections to the European Parliament, proposes a
candidate.
The European Parliament aims to strengthen the connections between both by voting in
European elections and voting for the European “government.” Regarding the latter issue,
European citizens not only elect the Parliament itself but also should have a say over who
would head the EU executive – the European Commission. This latter process became
known as ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ whereby European political parties, ahead of European
elections, appoint lead candidates for the role of Commission President, with the
presidency of the Commission then going to the candidate of the political party capable of
marshalling sufficient parliamentary support. This process was applied for the first time
in 2014 with Jean-Claude Juncker, the European People’s Party (EPP) lead candidate, but
already abandoned by EU Member States with the appointment of Ursula von der Leyen.
The European Council President Donald Tusk, at that time, declared in 2019 that a
renewed adoption of the lead candidate process was not automatic.
The former issue mentioned above, concerns the EU-wide elections organised at the
national level. The election process means that countries vote on different days, only
national political parties appear on the ballots and voting age varies. Both issues have
16
been taken up by the Conference on the Future of Europe and the Commission, by allowing
for European parties to campaign across borders, facilitating digital voting possibilities
and guaranteeing effective voting rights for persons with disabilities. The Conference on
the Future of Europe report states that European citizens should have a greater say on
who is elected President of the European Commission, suggesting this could be achieved
either by the direct election of the Commission President or by a lead candidate system.
You are a legal advisor to the European Parliament and asked to discuss different
legal options to resolve the following issues,
(i) One European election with transnational lists as opposed to 27 separate

national election lists and
(ii) Integrating the lead candidate process into the law or possibly including a
direct election of the Commission President in European Parliament
elections.
1.2 The Conference on the Future of Europe and Treaty amendments
The Conference on the Future of Europe in 2022 consisted, amongst other events, of
citizens’ panel discussions held over the course of a year. The final report outlines the
proposals that came out of these panels.
You work for the General Secretariat of the Council as a legal advisor on
institutional matters. The Spanish Prime Minister, as well as the Spanish
ambassador, who is the head of the Committee of Permanent Representatives
(Coreper) II, need help setting the Council agenda for the coming meetings of the
General Affairs Council.
They want your advice on a few institutional amendments proposed by the

Conference on the Future of Europe. These are some of the key institutional
proposals:
- Similar to other parliaments, the European Parliament should also have a right of
initiative so that they can propose legislation (Proposal 38(4));
- To avoid confusion, the names of the institutions should be amended to clarify their
functions. The Council should be called the Senate of the EU. This would also help
distinguish it from the European Council. The Commission would be renamed the
Executive Commission of the EU (Proposal 39(3)).
[If you are interested, the full report is available at:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20220509RES29121/2022
0509RES29121.pdf]
17
Minister Pedro Sánchez would like to receive in particular:
(i) An overview of the current legal framework on the four issues mentioned
above (e.g. how is the Commission President elected; how are MEPs elected;
etc), with reference to the relevant Treaty articles;
(ii) What procedure would have to be followed to implement the suggested

changes;
(iii) Express your opinion on their added benefit or possible institutional

challenges.
In parallel, the Commission also considers various (fictitious) Treaty changes. However,
it wonders whether these changes must be introduced through the ordinary treaty
revision procedure or the simplified revision procedure and what can be its role in
promoting Treaty change.
The first envisaged change is to add to Article 22 TFEU a new paragraph 3, which should
read as follows: ‘Every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State of which he is not
a national shall have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at the national elections
in the Member State in which he resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that
State. This right shall be exercised subject to detailed arrangements adopted by the
Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after
consulting the European Parliament. These arrangements may provide for derogations
where warranted by problems specific to a Member State’.
The second change the Commission considers is a new Article 153a TFEU, which should
read as follows: ‘In order to mitigate the social consequences of economic and monetary
integration, the Union shall set in place a common European unemployment benefit
scheme. This scheme shall supplement national unemployment benefit systems. To this
end, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure
and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall take the appropriate
action.
Finally, the Commission is exploring ways to get rid of the unanimity rule for at least
certain foreign policy decisions.
(iv) What legal advice would you give to the Commission?
Lastly, the Swedish government is fundamentally opposed to any Treaty change. It

wonders whether it can block the amendment process or at least ask for a referendum
before any reform is approved.
18
(v) How would Sweden’s opposition to Treaty reform affect the procedures?
1.3 Open question: Team Europe strikes again

On 16 July 2023, the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, the
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, in a Team
Europe spirit, alongside the President of Tunisia, Kaïs Saied have agreed to implement the
comprehensive partnership package announced jointly on 11 June 2023. In Tunis, Team
Europe witnessed the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding by Commissioner
for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Olivér Várhelyi and Secretary of State of the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Migration and Tunisians Abroad, Mounir Ben Rjiba. The Memorandum
of Understanding covers five pillars: macro-economic stability, trade and investment,
green energy transition, people-to people contacts, and migration. It will be implemented
through the various strands of cooperation between the European Union and Tunisia,
following the relevant regulations and applicable procedures (text at Memorandum of
Understanding between the EU and Tunisia (europa.eu)).
(i) Please explain what Team Europe is and what institutional role it has.
(ii) Some EU Member States and the High Representative Borrell, who have
been sidelined, have criticised this practice (see further at
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/18/eu-states-
expressed-incomprehension-at-tunisia-migration-pact-says-borrell,
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-lawmakers-parliament-fumed-by-
the-european-commission-tunisia-migration-deal/ ). Explain what their
legal concerns are.
19
Week 2 – Law-making I: Competences, legal basis and the Legislative
Process
Assignment week!
Deadline: Thursday 9 November 2023, at h 8.00

In your written assignment, discuss case studies 2.1 (The Right to Repair) and 2.2 (Love
is Love).
Open question 2.3 (Trilogues) does not need to be included in the written assignment but
will be discussed in class (and is part of the compulsory materials!).
Description
The second and third week of the course are dedicated to questions of law-making and
decision-making in the EU legal order. In the second week of the course, we will analyse
in particular, the division of competences between the EU and the Member States, explore
the concept of ‘legal basis’ and apply it to concrete cases, and reflect on the principles of
conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality. We will also start to look at the key roles of
the institutions in the EU legislative process.
Literature

- Chapter 5: K Bradley, ‘Legislating in the European Union’
2.1 Case study: The right to repair
Within the context of the European Green Deal, the Commission is reflecting on the
possible introduction of a new legislative proposal on the ‘Right to Repair’. This would be
part of the ‘Circular Economy Package’ that aims to build ‘a cleaner and more competitive
Europe’ by 2050 and foster the transition to a sustainable and regenerative growth model.
The right to repair would cover several different situations: repair during the legal
guarantee, the right to repair after the legal guarantee has expired, and the right for
consumers to repair products themselves.
The aim of the new piece of legislation would be to encourage consumers to use products
for longer by repairing defective goods and by purchasing more second-hand and
refurbished goods. The current legislative framework provides for products to be
repaired during the two-year legal guarantee period if they turn out to be faulty, but does
not, for instance, require manufacturers or sellers to repair products once the legal
guarantee has expired or if the products break down for reasons not covered by the
guarantee (e.g. due to improper use). The Commission plans to consider several options
as part of this initiative, with measures including extending the legal guarantee both in
20
scope and duration; obliging producers or sellers to repair goods beyond the legal
guarantee period; making repair the preferred remedy or even limiting consumers’ choice
to have a faulty product replaced; and enabling the seller to replace defective products
with refurbished goods and not new ones.
The EP supports the initiative as well. According to the EP, the legislative proposal should
ensure that products are designed in a way that they last longer and that they can be
repaired; that consumers are empowered to choose repairable products; and that
consumer rights and guarantees are strengthened to enable a longer use of goods.
(i) Which legal bases could be considered for the adoption of a legislative
proposal on the ‘right to repair’?
(ii) Please explain which criteria determine the choice of a legal basis
(including relevant case law).
In October 2022, it was revealed that the ‘Regulatory Scrutiny Board’ – an independent
body that advises the Commission on the ‘impact’ of new pieces of legislation – expressed
a negative opinion on the proposed package on the right to repair, and the Commission
has postponed any decision on the issue until 2023. The EP is unhappy with that choice.
(iii) Can the EP decide to go ahead and present a legislative proposal on the right
to repair?
(iv) If not, (how) could the Parliament try to ‘pressure’ the Commission to
introduce a legislative proposal?
2.2 Case study: Love is love
The pan-European NGO ‘Love is Love’ is increasingly dissatisfied with the situation of
LGBTQIA+ rights across the Union. While in certain Member States we have seen the
adoption of measures that offer a stronger set of rights and guarantees to LGBTQIA+
families and individuals, in other States things are moving in the opposite direction. Some
Member States have explicitly banned same-sex marriage at the constitutional level.
Love is Love thinks, in particular, that same-sex marriage should be regulated and
guaranteed at the EU level. The board of the NGO is reflecting on whether to propose a
European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), asking for the introduction of a new Regulation that
would introduce and regulate same-sex marriage in all 27 EU Member States. In addition,
the ECI could also propose further measures combating discrimination based on sexual
orientation in both the public and private sector.
21
(i) Advise Love is Love on whether the EU would have the competence to
regulate these issues.
(ii) Explain briefly the procedural requirements that would have to be fulfilled
by the NGO to make the initiative successful, and reflect on whether the
Commission would be forced to introduce those legislative proposals if the
initiative is successful.
Imagine now that the Commission goes ahead with parts of the plan and proposes a
legislative initiative saying that, irrespective of whether a Member State recognises or not
same-sex marriage, same-sex couples must be granted equal rights inter alia when it
comes to family, welfare and social security benefits.
Several national parliaments are strongly opposed to such proposal. In particular, the
parliaments of Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Croatia, Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Bulgaria
and the lower chamber (Sejm) of the Polish Parliament are vehemently critical of the EU’s
interference in what they consider purely domestic manner.
(iii) Can the national parliaments stop the adoption of the Commission’s
proposal?
2.3 Open question: Trilogues
In 2016, the Ombudsman issued her Decision OI/8/2015/JAS on the transparency of

Trilogues (available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/69206).
The Decision strongly criticized the system of trilogues and its negative impact on
transparency and democracy at the EU level.
(i) How does the trilogues system work?
(ii) Why has it been criticised?
(iii) In light of the Ombudsman’s criticism, do you think the system should be
reformed or perhaps even abolished?
(iv) If time allows, look also at the reply of the political institutions
(https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/doc/correspondence/en/88698)
: do you think the changes to the practice have sufficiently increased the
transparency of the system?
22
Week 3 – Law-making II: Sources, Delegation, and the Union’s External
Relations
Description
In the third week of the course, we will also explore other issues relating to the Union’s
law-making powers. In the lecture, we will look at the sources of EU law and introduce
other non-legislative types of decision-making. We will concentrate in particular on the
phenomenon of ‘delegation’ in its different manifestations and also look at the Union’s
capacity to conclude international agreements with third countries (and more generally
at the Union’s external relations as a whole).
Literature

- Look again at Chapter 5: K Bradley, ‘Legislating in the European Union’;
- Chapter 23: G De Baere, ‘EU External Action’.
3.1 Case study: Safe Air Travel
To ensure safe travel following the pandemic, Commissioner Adina Vălean wants to create
a EU regime to ensure the safety of air transport. Concretely, Commissioner Vălean is
thinking of proposing legislation that sets out safety requirements airlines have to meet
if they want to offer services in the EU internal market (i.e. transporting people from or to
EU airports). The legislation would set out the basic rules that all airlines operating in EU
skies must be safe and would also set out the specific safety requirements. Commissioner
Vălean also realises that these safety requirements might require updating in the future
as technical knowledge and engineering improve over time. Commissioner Vălean fears it
would be very cumbersome to go through the legislative procedure just to update the
specific safety requirements in the future. Finally, she also wants the legislation to provide
for a ‘blacklist’ of airline companies that fail to meet the safety requirements. To this end,
she has a mechanism in mind whereby the Commission can take individual decisions,
prohibiting individual airline companies from being active in the EU.
You work for the Commission Legal Service. Commissioner Vălean knocks on your
door and asks you whether the EU has the required competence to adopt this
legislation and whether you have any ideas on how to efficiently update the safety
requirements and create individual decisions to ban certain airlines.
23
Case 3.2 Case Study: Pirates at the Horn of Africa
Reading
(1) A.Ott, The European Parliament’s role in EU treaty-making, Maastricht
Journal of European and Comparative Law 2016, pp.1009-1039, see Canvas
(2) Cases C-658/11 EP v. Council (Pirate Transfer Agreement Mauritius),
ECLI:EU: C:2014:2025 and C-263/14 EP v.Council (Pirate Transfer
Agreement Tanzania)
Lulanka and the EU decided to conclude a bilateral international agreement on the
transfer and prosecution of suspected pirates captured in the North Western Indian
Ocean. Lulanka, as other neighbouring countries at the Horn of Africa, suffers from acts of
piracy committed in its waters, pirates target ships in the region because it is the main
line of transport for oil and natural gas. To fight this piracy, the EU established
EUNAVFOR. This EU CFSP action EUNAVFOR, also known as Operation Atalanta, is based
on a CFSP legal base and finds its background in various UN resolutions with the aim to
protect vessels, deter and prevent piracy and armed robbery at sea.
In the international agreement with Lulanka, the EU defines the conditions and modalities
for the transfer of persons suspected of having committed acts of piracy, detained by
EUNAVFOR within its area of operation and on the high seas off the coast of Lulanka,
Mauritius, Madagascar, Seychelles and Réunion Island. Under this agreement, EUNAVFOR
may transfer suspected pirates and associated seized property to the competent law
enforcement authorities of Lulanka for investigation and prosecution. The agreement
specifies that transferred suspects will be prosecuted and tried under Lulankan law.
Article 4 of the agreement sets out individual rights and minimum guarantees for suspects
awaiting trial. The agreement also defines both parties’ obligations regarding records,
notification and handling of seized property and evidence.
(i) Please briefly explain the treaty-making procedure under which this
international agreement is adopted. What is the role of the Commission and what
are the participatory rights of the EP in this CFSP agreement?
(ii) Why did the EP attack the CFSP agreements in the Mauritius and Tanzania (C-
658/11 and C-263/14) cases. Which legal basis did the EP see as more suited or also
suited, and why? In addition, reflect on whether a CFSP and non-CFSP legal bases
can be used together to conclude an international agreement.
24
3.3 Open question: The legacy of Maastricht
The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was introduced by the Maastricht
Treaty, which created the so-called ‘pillar structure’ by establishing the CFSP and the
Justice and Home Affairs ‘pillars’ next to the European Community. The Treaty
architecture was then modified by the Lisbon Treaty, which abolished the pillar structure.
(i) Are there still significant differences between the CFSP and other EU
policies?
(ii) We discussed institutional balance in the European Union. Is there a
difference between the internal and external institutional balance? Why or
why not?
(iii) One of the suggestions of the Conference on the Future of Europe is to make
use of passerelle clauses and move to qualified majority in certain policy
fields. It this also possible in the CFSP?
25
Week 4: Enforcement and Judicial Protection I: The Role of National
Courts
Assignment week!
Deadline: Thursday 23 November 2023, at h 20.00
In your written assignment, discuss case studies 4.1 (Brown Buffalo) and 4.2 (Judge Arpad
wants to read an EU law book).
Open question 4.3 (‘the PSPP saga’) does not need to be included in the written
assignment but will be discussed in class (and is part of the compulsory materials!).
Description
During weeks 4 and 5, we will explore principles, mechanisms and procedures for
enforcement and judicial protection in the EU’s multilevel legal order. As we will discuss,
both national courts and the Court of Justice play a fundamental role in this respect. In
week 4 we will start by examining the role of national courts and national judges. We will
reflect on the fundamental principles of direct and primacy, at the mechanism of state
liability, and look at the key procedure connecting national courts and the CJEU: the
preliminary reference mechanism.
Literature
From Barnard & Peers:

- Chapter 6: M Bobek, ‘The effects of EU law in the national legal systems’
4.1 Case study: Brown Buffalo
The Danish soft drink producer B&B produces a non-alcoholic drink called Brown Buffalo.
This lemonade with a herbal flavour has been popular among skiing tourists in the
Austrian Alps. The tired ones are getting awake, the unhappy get happy, and the wondrous
effects result from the high level of caffeine in the drink. One litre of Brown Buffalo
contains 320 mg caffeine per litre, which is about twice as much than regular cola.
B&B decided to export Brown Buffalo to Slovenia in 2021 after it has been sold
successfully on the Austrian and Danish market. The responsible administrative
authorities in Slovenia, however, prohibit the import. According to a Slovenian law on
health protection, the maximum amount of caffeine per litre in soft drinks is 250 mg.
Consequently, thousands of Brown Buffalo cans are kept sealed by the Slovenian customs
authorities in a storage room at Maribor airport at the expense of B&B.
B&B consults an independent expert who confirms that an overdose of caffeine can cause
health problems such as heart racing, especially for children and pregnant women.
However, two cups of coffee with a lot of sugar would have an effect comparable to one
can of Brown Buffalo, and for coffee such health law limits do not apply in Slovenia. The
26
company is also informed about the famous judgment of the Court of Justice in the Green
Cow case from 2015, in which the Court had held that a comparable Dutch law on health
protection, which prescribed that the maximum amount of caffeine per litre was 270 mg,
was considered in breach of Article 34 TFEU. In addition, there is already standard case
law on applying Article 34 TFEU in light of contravening national measures.
B&B decides to start proceedings in Slovenia against the administrative decision of

banning the import of Brown Buffalo and forcing B&B to pay storage costs. The costs of
storage have amounted to about € 20.000 in total since the start of the proceedings.
Before the competent district court in Maribor, B&B refers to the Green Cow case and
suggests that the district court should stay proceedings and ask the CJEU whether the
Slovenian law on health protection is also prohibited by Article 34 TFEU. To the surprise
of B&B, the Slovenian court decides in favour of the Slovenian administration, arguing that
Article 34 TFEU cannot be relied upon by individuals in Slovenian courts. B&B is shocked
because it, in its view Article 34 TFEU fulfils the conditions for direct effect.
B&B decides to appeal the judgment before the highest court, the Slovenian Supreme
Court. That Court, however, also decides in favour of the Slovenian administration. It
admits that the Maribor Court erred in holding that Article 34 TFEU lacks direct effect, but
it claimed that, on its reading, the Slovenian restriction to Article 34 TFEU could be
considered proportionate. It failed to engage with B&B’s request to refer the case to the
CJEU for preliminary ruling and did not consider the importance of the Green Cow
judgment.
(i) Does Article 34 TFEU, in your view, fulfil the conditions for direct effect?
(ii) Are lower courts, such as the Maribor Court, authorised to apply EU law
provisions directly, even when they are in conflict with national law?
(iii) Was the Maribor Court obliged to refer the case to the CJEU for a preliminary
ruling?
(iv) Was the Slovenian Supreme Court obliged to refer the case to the CJEU for a
preliminary ruling?
The storage costs have amounted to another € 20.000 since the Slovenian Supreme Court
ruling (so a total of € 40.000 storage costs).
(v) Can Slovenia be held liable for these costs?
27
Case 4.2 Case study Judge Arpad wants to read an EU law book
The EU adopts a European Parliament (EP) and Council Directive on judicial cooperation
and judicial education. This Directive aims to facilitate judicial cooperation between EU
Member States in civil, commercial and criminal matters, to improve the education of
national judges in EU law, and facilitate their training in EU law. It grants, therefore, in
Article 3 all judges a minimum of three days of additional paid leave annually for further
study of EU law. The judges’ claims of extra paid leave have to be addressed to the courts’
administration in which the judges work. The EP and Council Directive on judicial
cooperation and judicial education needs to transposed by Member States at the latest on
1 May 2020.
Article 3 of the EP and Council Directive on judicial cooperation and judicial

education:
National judges working on civil, commercial and criminal court cases in EU

Member States’ national courts have a right to a minimum of three additional days
of paid leave for education and training purposes on EU law.
The Member State Hungary implements the Directive into national law in time. However,
in the national implementing legislation, Hungary excludes family law judges who belong
to the civil court system. The reasoning is that - according to the Hungarian legislator -
family judges do not require training in EU law and EU case law. Arpad Horvath is a family
law judge at the civil law section of the District Civil Court in Budapest, Hungary. He is
interested in EU law and wants to update his knowledge of recent EU case law in July
2020.
(i) Can judge Arpad rely on the EU Directive on judicial cooperation and judicial
education to successfully claim three days of additional paid leave? (If yes, at
which court will he lodge his claim)
(ii) Assume that Arpad claims the three additional paid days of leave laid down
in the EU Directive on judicial cooperation and judicial education. The
responsible President of the Civil District Court of Budapest, however, denies
his request with reference to the Hungarian law. Arpad then decides to take
two days of unpaid leave to update himself on EU law and its case law. Can he
claim that he should be reimbursed for the money he lost by taking unpaid
leave (in total 300 Euros)?
After Arpad has gained sufficient knowledge of recent EU case law, he is confronted with
a new Disciplinary Chamber situated at the Highest civil court, whose members are
closely associated to the ruling political party in government. A Hungarian law adopted in
28
2019 provides this disciplinary chamber with the power to cut judges’ salaries and
suspend judges from their work in cases of disciplinary offences. Arpad Horvath wants to
address a preliminary question to the ECJ concerning the application of EU law in a
pending family law case. The District Court has, however, established an internal rule for
all judges at the civil court that EU-related questions will be addressed by a specific panel
in the District court and this panel decides whether to refer a question to the ECJ. Breaches
of this internal rule will be considered a disciplinary offence by the panel and can be
brought to the attention of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Highest Civil Court.
Arpad does not understand why this internal rule and panel can impede him from asking
a question to the ECJ. He knows Article 267 TFEU very well and has read that any national
court or tribunal has the discretion to refer.
(iii) Can the internal rule and panel restrict Arpad’s access to the CJEU to ask a
preliminary question?
4.3 Open question: the PSPP saga
The German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundeserfassungsgericht, BVerfG) has

traditionally been one of the national courts more reluctant to fully accept the notion of
primacy developed by the Court of Justice. In a series of judgments, it has established
national constitutional limits to the primacy of EU law in the domestic legal order.
The tension between the BVerfG and the CJEU became a more open conflict with the 2020
PSPP judgment (Judgment of 5 May 2020, 2 BvR 859/15, 2 BvR 980/16, 2 BvR 2006/15,
2 BvR 1651/15) of the German Court. The BVerfG explicitly refused to follow the ruling of
the CJEU in the Weiss case (C-493/17) and it was said that it ‘set a bomb under the EU
legal order’ (https://www.ft.com/content/79484c01-b66b-4f81-bdc6-fd4def940821).
Have a look at the judgments (even the English press release of the BVerfG ruling would
suffice), which have been extensively discussed on the web (for example on
Verfassungsblog).
(i) Does the decision of the BVerfG breach EU law? If so, what provisions of EU
law were breached?
(ii) Reflect also on how the European Union could react (or maybe did react?) to
the (alleged) breach of EU law.
(iii) And finally, reflect on this seemingly simple and obvious question: who is
right? The CJEU or the BVerfG?
29
Week 5: Enforcement and Judicial Protection II: The Role of the Court
of Justice
Assignment week!
Deadline: Wednesday 30 November 2022, at h 20.00
Discuss case studies 5.1 (Tutti paletti, lettori?) and 5.2 (Sunrise) in your written
assignment.
Open question 5.3 (‘No individual concern on a dead planet?’) does not need to be
included in the written assignment but will be discussed in class (and is part of the
compulsory materials!).
Description
Having looked at the role of national courts in the EU judicial system in week 4, in week 5
we will now concentrate on the Court of Justice. We will explore the key procedures for
judicial protection before the CJEU, namely the infringement procedure, the action for
annulment and the plea of illegality.
Literature

- Chapter 10: A Albors-Llorens, ‘Judicial protection before the Court of Justice of the
European Union’
5.1 Case study: Tutti paletti, lettori?

It has been a neverending saga. The European Commission has already taken Italy six
times to court for breaches of EU law. In cases dating back to 1983, the continuous
discrimination of foreign-language lecturers or assistants at Italian universities became a
matter of dispute. An Italian law (law 235) adopted in 1980 on tenure for university
lecturers and assistants stipulated that lettori –university staff teaching in their mother
tongue at Italian universities - were given annual contracts renewable contracts for five
years. They also set a cap on the salary, which cannot be higher than an assistant professor
at the beginning of their career.
In judgments (Case 33/88 Allué and Coonanand Joined Cases C-259/91, C-331/91 and C-
332/91 Allué and Others), the CJEU ruled that the continued and systematic use by Italian
universities of fixed-term contracts to meet ongoing needs in language teaching was
incompatible with EU law. Among foreign-language assistants, only 25 percent are of
Italian nationality and therefore, this law constitutes a breach of Article 45 TFEU. This
forms an indirect discrimination prohibited under Article 45 TFEU and Italy could not
come up with any legitimate derogations and public interest justifications to justify this
indirect discrimination. Consequently, non-Italian university lecturers must have the
same open-ended contracts as their Italian counterparts.
30
Italy changed law 235 in 1995 and enacted law 236, which offered lettori new contracts
as collaboratori ed esperti linguistic (associate and mother-tongue linguistic expert in the
category of technicians). In difference to university assistants, they are engaged with the
university on the basis of a private-law contract and no longer on a self-employed basis.
This led to a lower salary scale as previously assigned to lettori, but the law is committed
to the retention of rights acquired during the former employment relationships.
In the case C-212/99, Commission v. Italy, the CJEU declared that Italy had failed to
comply with Article 45 TFEU because the job experience was not recognised. In a further
case raised against Italy brought before the court in 2006 (case C-119/04), the
Commission reminded the Italian authorities to comply with the obligations under the
judgment in Case C-212/99 and argued that Italy has breached Article 260 TFEU. The
Commission further asked for the imposition of a penalty payment of € 30.9750 for each
day of delay in taking the measures to comply with the judgment in Case C-212/99. The
court stressed in its judgment C-119/04 that Italy had not complied with all measures
necessary, it especially stressed that former assistants who have been employed under a
fixed-term contract have that contract replaced by one of indeterminate duration, they
should retain all rights acquired from the date of their original recruitment. That
guarantee had consequences not only regarding salary increases, but also concerning
seniority and payment by the employer of social security contributions. This judgment
confirmed the failure of Italy at the date of the expiry of the deadline of the reasoned
opinion, but no penalty payment was awarded. The CJEU explained that it did not receive
sufficient information from the Commission on whether the breach of the obligations
persisted.
The discrimination has worsened since the adoption of a new higher education law in
2010, the Gelmini law. While, for instance, a lower court in Brescia awarded a foreign
language lecturer damages, this was overturned by the Court of Appeal with reference to
the Gelmini law. According to the Gelmini law, damages claims raised against Italian
universities based on the above judgments of the CJEU have been quashed with
retroactive effect for all cases pending against Italian universities in Italian courts. Foreign
university lecturers reclassified as technicians were also at some Italian universities
assigned to basement offices and denied access to staff rooms assigned to the university
staff.
The Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Italy on 21 June 2021 for failing to comply
with EU rules on free movement of workers, namely Regulation EU No 492/2011 and
especially its Article 7. Under EU law, EU citizens who exercise their right to free
movement must not be discriminated against because of their nationality as regards
access to employment and working conditions. The Commission further refers to the
ruling in case C-119/04 and repeats that the law allows for the adjustment of their salary,
seniority and corresponding social security benefits to those of a researcher under a part-
time contract, and it grants them the right to back payments as of the start of their
employment. However, Italian law requires the signing of a collective agreement. Most
31
universities did not sign such a collective agreement, resulting in most foreign lecturers
still not receiving the money to which they are entitled. Italy is still discriminating against
foreign lecturers. In this letter of formal notice, Italy was given until 21 September 2021
to address the shortcomings identified by the Commission. On 20 September, Italy
explained in a letter to the Commission the following:
• The Italian constitution requires a collective agreement between the employers’

association and the trade union. The problem, therefore, cannot be resolved
unilaterally by the public bodies and the State has to respect this contractual
autonomy,
• The same question has already been decided by the Court of Justice in the two
infringement procedures and cannot become substance to a new infringement
procedure,
• The national courts are responsible for applying EU law and these judges are
independent and the Italian State cannot influence their decisions,
• Spain also discriminates foreign lecturers and this has not been raised by the
European Commission in an infringement procedure.
(i) Please assess the justifications provided by Italy in light of EU case law.
(ii) Please explain next steps the Commission will take in the infringement
procedure in autumn 2021.
(iii) Can the Commission start the shortened infringement procedure?
(iv) The foreign lecturers argue that the EU Commission has insufficiently
investigated these complaints and has not taken them up earlier despite the
information it received. Briefly reflect on the following questions: What legal
remedies do the lettori have against the EU Commission? What legal
remedies do the lettori have against Italy? Can an individual citizen rely on
Article 15 TFEU to get access to the Commission’s reasoned opinion?
5.2 Case study – Sunrise
In March 2023, the EU adopted Regulation 2023/432 ‘on prohibiting products made with
forced labour on the Union market’. The Regulation, based on Articles 114 and 207 TFEU,
seeks to ban the import of products made with forced labour in the EU internal market. It
allows competent national authorities to open investigations on certain products or
economic operators when there are indications of a risk of forced labour in the operations
of those producers or in their value chain. When the competent authorities establish that
the obligation not to place on the market products made with forced labour has been
violated by a certain operator or producer, they can adopt a decision that inter alia forces
the business in question to withdraw from the Union market the relevant products. The
32
Regulation was published on the Official Journal on 15 March 2023 and entered into force
on 1 May 2023.
Sunrise, a powerful Greek-Chinese solar panel energy producer, immediately expresses

skepticism on the new piece of legislation. Of course it does not deny that forced labour
should be prohibited, and it accepts the idea that products made with forced labour
should be banned in the EU, but claims that the Regulation has a disproportionate impact
on their freedom to conduct a business as it imposes excessive transparency obligations,
and it does not adequately guarantee the right to be heard for companies subject to
investigations. Furthermore, Sunrise doubts whether a regulation that ‘simply’ bans
certain products from the EU internal market could be lawfully based on Article 114 TFEU.
The company is unsure whether to challenge the Regulation directly, or to ‘lobby’ the
Greek government – who abstained in the vote on the Regulation in the Council – to do so
on its behalf.
(i) Advise Sunrise on the best course of action.
In September 2024, reports emerge that Sunrise had concrete reason to be concerned
about the regulation after all. After a thorough investigation, Amnesty International
published a report on how Sunrise relies on forced labour in its value chain. The national
authorities of Croatia and the Malta quickly move to ban the marketing of solar panels
made by Sunrise and issue decisions based on the Regulation ordering Sunrise to
withdraw its products from their national markets. Sunrise challenges the decisions
before the competent Croatian and Maltese courts and claims once more that Regulation
2023/432 is invalid because it infringes the company’s rights and is based on the wrong
legal basis. In the view of the company, the national courts should refuse to apply the new
EU Regulation.
(ii) Advise the Croatian and Maltese judges on how to address Sunrise’s
arguments on the validity of the Regulation.
Imagine now that the Decision that demands that Sunrise withdraws its product from the
market would be taken by the Commission, rather than by national authorities. Sunrise
wonders whether it could challenge that decision and where, and whether, in that
proceeding, the company would have the possibility to claim the invalidity of the parent
Regulation.
(iii) Advise Sunrise on the best course of action.
33
5.3. Open question: No individual concern on a dead planet?
Read the Court of Justice’s decision in Case C-565/19 P Carvalho and others v Parliament
and Council.
(i) Identify the main arguments the applicants used to claim that their action
was admissible. You can also consult the applicants’ blog explaining the
objectives of the ligation: https://peoplesclimatecase.caneurope.org
(ii) Analyse why the Court of Justice decided to dismiss the appeal.
(iii) Share your reflections on the decision: do you find the CJEU reasoning and
the case outcome convincing?
34
Week 6 - EU Fundamental Rights and EU Values
In week 6 we will first of all explore the system of fundamental rights protection built by
the Treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We will, in particular, look at the
‘horizontal provisions’ of the Charter regulating inter alia the scope of application of the
instrument, questions of limitations of fundamental rights, and the standards for
fundamental rights protection. We will also look at the possibilities provided by the
Treaties to protect EU rights and EU values when the EU institutions or the Member States
are accused of breaching these key components of the EU ‘constitution’.
Literature

- Chapter 9: E Spaventa, ‘Fundamental rights in the European Union’
6.1 Case study: Fighting Russian influence
In January 2023, Russia decided to further escalate the war with Ukraine and also to send
new troops at the borders with Estonia and Latvia. The European Union immediately
issued new sanctions and decided that more must be done to counter Russian influence
within its borders. The European Parliament and the Council, among other measures,
adopt an amendment to the ‘Staff Regulations’, disciplining the relationships between EU
intuitions and their staff, as well as access to EU positions. The amendments prohibit EU
civil servants from expressing in public pro-Russian views in context of the Ukrainian
conflict; disciplinary sanctions can be imposed to civil servants who breach that rule, and
repeated breaches can ultimately lead to dismissal.
Emmanuel Limonov is a French-Russian citizen who works for the European Central
Bank. He is known among his colleagues for his – as he puts it himself – ‘unorthodox’ views
on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which he maintains is only a ‘special military
operation’ to get rid of a pro-Nazi government. He is very active on Twitter, where he has
over 430.000 followers. Limonov harshly criticises the new rules adopted by the EP and
Council, but he is undeterred and continues to share his pro-Russian and pro-Putin views
on social media. The ECB first reprimands him and warns him that his behavior may lead
to further sanctions, then downgrades his position and ultimately issues a decision
dismissing Limonov.
Limonov wants to challenge the ECB decision to dismiss him. On what legal grounds
can he base his argument, and do you think it could be successful?
35
6.2 Open question: LGBT+ rights in Hungary
In June 2021, Hungary passed legislation with the alleged aim to better protect children
from sex abuses. The new law, however, also restricts the dissemination of content in
school that is deemed to promote homosexuality or gender change, and limits LGBT+
representation in media banning depictions of LGBT+ content in certain time slots.
Human rights associations have criticised the new law as discriminating against people
on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity. You may have a look for
example at this short comment by Human Rights Watch:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/15/lgbt-rights-under-renewed-pressure-
hungary.
Can the Commission bring Hungary before the Court of Justice claiming that the new
law breaches human rights? Under what conditions and in what procedure(s)?
In order to assess the arguments the Commission could use in this case, also look at
the reasoning of the Commission and of the Court of Justice in the previous cases C-
66/18 Commission v Hungary (Enseignement supérieur) and C-78/18 Commission
v Hungary (Transparency of Associations) and explain whether and how the
Commission can tackle fundamental rights breaches by the Member States.
6.3 Open question: Judicial independence in Poland
Since 2015, the Polish ruling majority government has adopted controversial reforms of
the judiciary that have been repeatedly criticised by European and international
observers.
(i) Do a bit of independent research and map out the reaction of the EU
institutions in the first years of the Polish ‘rule of law crisis’. What
instruments have been used between 2015 and 2018? How do they work?
In 2018, a judgment of the Court of Justice in the unrelated ‘Portuguese judges’ case (C-
64/16 ASJP) opened new ways for the Commission and the Court to tackle possible
breaches of judicial independence by Polish authorities.
(ii) Read judgments C-64/16 ASJP and C-619/18 Commission v Poland (Supreme
Court), and, if time allows, look for a couple of comments on those decisions.
What is the groundbreaking principle affirmed by the Court in the first
ruling? And how was it operationalised in the second decision?
36
Week 7 – Reforming and enlarging the European Union?
Description
In the last week of the course, we will look at a few open challenges that may shape the
future of the EU and of European integration. We will concentrate in particular on
possibilities for differentiated integration the challenges of enlargement, and continue to
explore the threats posed by the ‘rule of law crisis’ in the Member States. During the
lecture we will also have the opportunity to revise a few issues explored in previous
weeks.
Materials
No additional readings, but it may be useful to look back at parts of chapters 2, 5 and 9 in
order to solve the tasks.
7.1 Case study: Tax the Rich?
Following a deal at the international level in the OECD and in the G-20, the Commission as
well as several Member States have begun to work on a ‘global tax plan’, consisting most
crucially of a common minimum corporate tax rate for multinationals. The Commission
presented a proposal for a Council Directive in December 2021 based on Article 115 TFEU.
Negotiations continued in the first months 2022, but in the summer, the Hungarian
government publicly expressed its opposition to the plan and discussions have been
shelved for the time being.
(i) Briefly explain why the Commission has relied on this ‘unusual’ legal basis
and why the Hungarian opposition is enough to block the Directive.
(ii) Advise the French government – one of the main proponents of the global tax
plan – on what strategies (if any) could be put in place to overcome the
Hungarian veto.
(iii) Advise the Commission on whether the Treaties provide for a structural way
to prevent other single-country vetoes on tax matters in the future.
37
7.2 Case study: Inhaling a mojito
The EU has harmonised rules on manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and
related products. The Council/EP Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU (TPD)
allows for the sale and marketing of heated tobacco products. The TPD prohibits,
according to Article 7 (1) and (7), the placing on the market of tobacco products with a
flavour and according to the TPD directive, however, tobacco products other than
cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco and heated tobacco are exempted from the prohibition.
These heated tobacco products are sold in EU Member States as flavoured vapes.The EU
Commission wants to tackle the rise of flavoured e-cigarettes, which are on the rise among
the youth in Europe. Teenagers inhale tastes like bubblegum, mint, strawberry,
watermelon and mojito. Many people believe vaping is safer than smoking, but this is not
necessarily true. Mounting evidence suggests that vaping is dangerous. Independent
studies have clarified that potential health effects exists, but long-term effects have not
yet fully determined. Nevertheless, the evidence is clear that the aerosols inhaled contain
toxic chemicals, including nicotine and other substances that can cause cancer. The EU
Commission commissioned an independent report providing information and statistics
on market developments, showing an increase in the sales volumes of heated tobacco
products by at least 10 % in five Member States. While cigarettes remain the most used
form of tobacco products, a concerning trend is emerging from using e-cigarettes.
According to the latest available data, young people are turning to these products at an
alarming rate. The new report reveals that in some countries, the rates of e-cigarette use
among adolescents were much higher than those for conventional cigarettes. In most of
the EU Member States, for example, 15.3% of students smoked cigarettes and 23.4% used
e-cigarettes in 2022.
The EU Commission adopts a Commission delegated directive and introduces a new legal
category of heated tobacco products in this delegated act on 22 July 2022. In addition, a
prohibition of sale and marketing of heated tobacco products is introduced. The delegated
directive further defines that “‘heated tobacco product’ means a novel tobacco product
that is heated to produce an emission containing nicotine and other chemicals, which is
then inhaled by user(s), and that, depending on its characteristics, is a smokeless tobacco
product or a tobacco product for smoking.’”
Member States shall adopt and publish, by 23 July 2023 at the latest, the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this delegated Directive. They
shall communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and shall apply those
provisions from 23 October 2023. Some Member States have concerns about whether
the European Commission is overstepping its delegated powers by introducing a new
legal category of heated tobacco products. Member States Bulgaria argues that
introducing a definition of heated tobacco products goes beyond the delegated power
38
under TPD and involves essential elements reserved for the European legislators and, as
such, should be submitted to the ordinary legislative review process.
(i) Can Bulgaria challenge in August 2022 the Commission Delegated

Directive successfully in court.
(ii) The Netherlands implemented the delegated act on 1 January 2023

through a regulation in which the sale of heated tobacco products are
prohibited from 1 October 2023 onwards. Ismoke is a company based
in Denmark which sells e-cigarettes and its equipment also in the
Netherlands. Please explain whether Ismoke can challenge the
delegated Directive and/or the implementing Dutch regulation with the
argument that their fundamental rights are breached.
7.3 Open question: Enlargement and/or institutional reforms?
Report of the Franco-German working group on EU institutional reform, 18

September 2023, https://www.politico.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2023/09/19/Paper-EU-reform.pdf
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has relaunched the debate on possible future
enlargements of the European Union – a discussion that had been stagnating for years.
Ukraine and Georgia and Moldova decided to send formal membership applications to the
EU in March 2022. In June, Ukraine and Moldova have then been formally recognised as
candidate countries, while Georgia is considered a ‘potential candidate’. In July, the
Commission also started official accession negotiations with Albania and North
Macedonia.
The possible accession of Ukraine and other candidate countries raises several political
questions, but also some legal-constitutional ones.
(i) Identify some of the possible constitutional challenges that further

enlargement may create for the Union. Would Treaty change and
institutional reforms be necessary before the EU could accept new
members?
(ii) Look back more generally at the topics discussed in these seven weeks. In
your view, does the current Treaty framework need revision? If so, what is
the single most important reform that should take place?
39
Last year’s exam
Question 1 – Slow down, Elon (case study, first part)
The automation of driving is rapidly advancing. To guarantee a functioning internal

market for vehicles, and to ensure a high minimum standard of safety when it comes to
automated vehicles, the EU wants to make sure that its legal standards remain up to date.
In 2019, after a Commission’s proposal, the Parliament and the Council adopted the
‘Vehicle General Safety Regulation’ (Regulation 2019/2144). The Regulation is based on
Article 114 TFEU and its key aim is to promote advancements in vehicle systems to
effectively reduce fatalities, decrease road accidents, and mitigate injuries. The Regulation
has been in force since 6 July 2022.
One of the current requirements in the Regulation is that all cars must alert drivers when
they are exceeding the speed limit. This feature is called the ‘Intelligence Speed
Assistance’ (ISA) system and is regulated in Article 6(2) of the Regulation.
Since the adoption of the Regulation, manufacturers have made further progress in this
area to allow for speed reduction in light of upcoming traffic congestion. The Commission
wants to set these advancements as the norm, considering they can also help with
achieving the EU’s emission reduction goals.
Therefore, the Commission wants to quickly adopt an act to amend the current
requirements for ISA systems, without going through the entire legislative process. The
idea is to amend the relevant Annex of the Regulation to read: ‘The ISA system is activated
when upcoming congestion allows for lowering vehicle speed without incurring delays’.
The Transport Ministers of the Czech Republic, Italy and Sweden are however opposed to
the Commission’s suggestion, as they believe the Commission is exploiting the ‘Vehicle
General Safety Regulation’ to further other political objectives of its green agenda.
Briefly (500 words max) advise the Commission on:

• what type of act it could adopt in order to amend the Regulation 2019/2144 as
suggested;
• whether it would have the power to adopt the proposed act;
• whether the opposition of the three transport Ministers could prevent the act
40
Question 2 - Slow down, Elon (case study, second part)
Imagine now that the Commission’s proposed act regarding the ISA system, as presented
in question 1, has entered into force. Tesla is working on a brand new model of car. This
car was set to include a feature that notifies the driver that the vehicle speed can be
reduced due to upcoming traffic jams, the driver can then press the relevant button to
engage the reduction of speed.
Germany’s Federal Motor Transport Authority rejects Tesla’s new model for not
complying with the updated ISA system requirements. Their authority’s argument is that
the ‘activation’ of the system should entail an immediate reduction in speed.
Tesla’s legal representatives challenge the decision in the competent administrative court
in Hamburg. They claim that ‘activation’ of the ISA system can also be interpreted as
entailing their notification feature.
The judges at the Hamburg administrative court are convinced that they know what is
meant by the applicable EU law provisions; however, they have serious doubts whether
the Commission had the power to adopt the relevant act.
Briefly (400 words max) advise the judges of the Hamburg administrative court as
to whether they must refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice and if so,
what type of question they should refer.
Question 3 – Do we all agree? (open question)

Unanimity clauses are Treaty rules which provide that EU institutions (most commonly
the Council and the European Council) or the Member States should act by unanimity.
Throughout our course, several unanimity clauses have been discussed.
Write a brief essay (600 words max) in which you:
• identify and mention two unanimity clauses that we have discussed;
• explain under which procedure(s) these clauses could be amended in order to
switch to qualified majority voting;
• briefly assess whether and why, in your view, such amendments would (not) be
beneficial for the future of EU integration.
41

European Union Law - Foundations IER 3006 2023-24final-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Union Law - Foundations IER 3006 2023-24final-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

European Union Law - Foundations IER 3006 2023-24final-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Year 2023/2024

European Union Law: Foundations

Course coordinator: Prof. Dr. Andrea Ott

European Union Law: Foundations

1. Introduction and Course objectives

1. To provide students thorough knowledge and understanding of the legal-

▪ The Treaties as the ‘constitutional charter’ of the Union;

3. To improve students’ analytical and critical skills

b) 7 tutorials on Thursdays or Fridays (check your timetable).

Trained skills and Dublin descriptors (and final qualifications)

2. Course structure and teaching

2.2. Tutorial Meetings

Week Topic Assignment

The Foundations of the European Union –

3 Law-making II: Sources, Delegation and

6 EU Fundamental Rights and EU Values

7 Reforming and enlarging the European

At the exam you are authorised to bring and use:

3.2 Written assignments

- Week 2: Thursday 9 November 2023, at h 8.00

4.1 Basic Materials

The main textbook used in the course is:

Catherine Barnard and Steve Peers, EU law, 4th edn 2023

• EU Treaties (Blackstone legislation, Maastricht Collection or any printed copy of

- Common Market Law Review (CMLR)

Many relevant materials are also available on the Internet:

Job van Bekhoven, tutor

Chloé-Emmeline Garrier, tutor

Moramay Koomen, tutor

Jakob Piep, tutor

Ilaria Piovesan, tutor

Michelle Scheffers, tutor

Gilles Vandeweyer, tutor

Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, ECLI:EU:C:1970:114 (EU law takes

Case 106/77, Simmenthal, ECLI:EU:C:1978:49 (primacy over prior and subsequent

Choice of a legal basis

Case C-338/01, Recovery of Indirect Taxes (Commission v. Council), ECLI:EU:C:2004:253

Case 300/89, Titanium Dioxide (Commission v. Council), ECLI:EU:C:1991:244 (dual basis

C-376/98, Tobacco Advertising (Germany v. Parliament and Council), ECLI:EU:C:2000:544

Institutional principles and fundamental principles (human rights protection)

Case 36/75, Rutili (Rutili v Ministre de l'intérieu) ECLI:EU:C:1975:137 (exceptions on

Direct and indirect effect

Case 93/71, Leonesio (Leonesio v Ministero dell'agricoltura e foreste) ECLI:EU:C:1972:39

Case 8/81, Becker (Ursula Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt) ECLI:EU:C:1982:7

Case 148/78, Ratti (Criminal proceedings against Ratti) ECLI:EU:C:1979:110 (estoppel

Case C-413/15, Farrell (Farrell v Alan Whitty and Others) ECLI:EU:C:2017:745

Case C-122/17, Smith (Smith v Meade) ECLI:EU:C:2018:631 (recapitulation of the rules

Case C-16/16P Belgium v. Commission (online gambling services), ECLI:EU:C:2018:79,

Direct effect, vertical and horizontal of primary law

Lack of horizontal effect of non-implemented Directive

Indirect effect or duty of consistent interpretation

Case C-106/89, Marleasing (Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion

When does the duty of consistent interpretation start?

Joined cases C-24 and 48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur/Factortame (Brasserie du Pêcheur SA

Case C-224/01, Köbler (Köbler v Austria) ECLI:EU:C:2003:513 (confirmation of state

Case C-224/01, Köbler (Köbler v Austria) ECLI:EU:C:2003:513 (remedies under EU law

Case 48/65, Lütticke (Lütticke GmbH v Commission) ECLI:EU:C:1966:8 (Commission has

Case C-350/02, Commission v. Netherlands (Commission v Netherlands)

Case C-1/00 Commission v France (Commission v France) ECLI:EU:C:2001:687

Case C-416/17, Commission v. France, EU:C:2018:811 (the failure of a national court of