Case Law- Shared Principles
WEEK 1: AUTONOMY OF EU LAW
Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos
Main Focus: Direct Effect of EU Law & Article 30 TFEU (12 EEC)
- Direct Effect → Possibility for private parties to directly rely on EU law
before the Member States courts
- Article 12 EEC → Article 30 TFEU → Prohibition of custom duties
Parties:
● Plaintive - Van Gend
● Defendant - NL
Facts:
● Van Gend (company) claimed → NL infringed Article 12 EEC by imposing an
import duty on a chemical imported from
Germany
Questions:
1) Does Art 12 EEC have direct effect before national courts?
2) If so, whether changing the customs classification of the product with the effect of
making the customs duties higher, was in breach of the clause.
CJEU Ruling:
1) Art 30 has Direct Effect (para. 21)
2) CJEU no jurisdiction (para. 27)
- To understand whether custom duties or charges having equivalent effect are
contrary to Art 30 → Need to look at WHEN custom duties were applied at date of
entry into force of Treaty
- Increase of Tax → a) Re-arrangement of tariff due to
classification of product
b) Increase in rate of custom duty
Reasoning of CJEU:
● Community law has an authority which can be invoked by their nationals before those
courts and tribunals.
Effects/Importance of case
1. Inaugurated the Doctrine of direct effect
2. Empowering individuals to enforce rights from EU law before national courts
,Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL
Main Focus: Primacy/Precedence/Supremacy of EU law over national law → Nature of EU law
- Reaffirmed doctrine of Direct Effect
Parties:
● Plaintive - Mr Costa
● Defendant - ENEL
Facts
● Italy nationalised production + distribution of electricity
● Mr Costa → Felt affected by measure taken by Italian gov ENEL
○ Claimed: Nationalising act infringed Art 102,93,53,37 EEC
● Italian Courts → Dismissed case
○ National law > EU law (para. 6)
○ Costa appealed to CJEU
CJEU Ruling
● EC is a community → Legal order independent of national orders (para. 8)
○ MS obliged to apply EU law + ensure precedence
- Law stemming from the Treaty cannot be overridden by
domestic legal provisions (para 12)
○ Precedence confirmed by Article 288 TFEU (para 11)
Effects/Importance of case
1) Established the principle of the supremacy of EU law
2) EU law has direct effect
- Direct applicability of EU law makes provisions uniformly applicable in all MS’s
Opinion 2/13 EU Accession to ECHR
Main Focus: Whether the draft agreement for accession to ECHR is compatible with the
autonomy of EU Law
Issue:
● Is the draft agreement providing accession to the ECHR compatible with the treaties?
● Are the legal arrangements proposed in conformity with the requirements laid down in
Article 6(2) & the treaties?
○ Requirements: a) Accession shall not affect EU’s competences
b) Accession must preserve specific features of EU law
c) Accession cannot affect the powers of the institutions or Article
344 TFEU Protocol No 8 EU
d) Accession cannot affect situation of MS in relation to the ECHR
,Problems to EU Accession
1) Subject to external control to ensure the observance of the rights & freedoms of
the ECHR
○ Article 1 ECHR (para 181)
- Result: The EU & its institutions would be subject to control mechanisms
provided by the ECHR → violate EU autonomy
2) Treat the EU as a state = (equal role as other Contracting Parties)
● Would break mutual trust
○ Mutual trust → MS’s share & recognise they share a set of common
values on which the EU is founded (para 168)
a. Trust that those values are recognised,
implemented & respected
b. Considers that all MS’s are complying with EU law
(para 191)
c. MS cannot demand a higher level of fundamental
rights protection than EU law
d. Cannot check whether another MS has observed
those guarantees
○ With Accession → MS to check whether other MS’s have observed
fundamental rights
- Result: Undermines autonomy of EU law
3) Preliminary ruling procedure may be circumvented (para 198)
○ Protocol No 16 → Allows highest courts & tribunals to request advisory opinions
from the ECtHR
- EU law requires these courts to submit a request to the CJEU
4) Co Respondent Mechanism
- AIM: avoid gaps in enforceability of ECHR due to EU’s accession (para. 215)
- Art 3(2) draft: when application is directed against MS, EU may become a
co-respondent if it appears that compatibility of EU law with Convention
is called into question
- Allow EU to become party to proceedings
- CJEU: incompatible with CJEU exclusive jurisdiction in determining division of
powers between EU MS
5) CFSP Judicial Review
- EU Law Now: certain aspects of CFSP fall outside ambit of judicial review of CJEU
- After accession: ECtHR → empowered to rule on compatibility with ECHR where
CJEU can’t
, Opinion 1/17 CETA
Main Focus: whether the CETA ISDS is compatible with EU Law regarding the autonomy of EU
- Autonomy of EU Law: asserts that the EU is a distinct legal system operating
independently from its Member States
Facts:
● CETA → Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (Between EU & Canada)
- Free trade agreement on reduction of custom duties and non-tariff barriers to
trade in goods and services
○ Controversial → Investor Stated Dispute Resolution (ISDS) mechanism
- Aim: Establishment of a permanent Tribunal
- Issues of permanent tribunal
a. Decisions can be appealed before a court of appeal
- For disputes between investors & the EU, the MSs
or Canada
- Would affect autonomy of EU law
b. May affect the power of the institutions
○ EU & MSs have to sign & ratify CETA
- Problem: Some MS have not ratified it→ Preventing it from entering into
Force
Ex: Belgium → Opinion on the
compatibility of ISDR with Treaties
Question:
- Is Section F Ch 8 CETA compatible with EU Treaties?
CJEU Answer
- Section F of Chapter 8 of CETA Is compatible with EU primary law
Ruling:
● Compatibility with EU’s autonomy
○ Establishing the tribunal is only compatible with EU law if it has no adverse effect
on the autonomy of the EU legal order (para 108)
- Autonomy: a. Treaties
b. Its primacy
c. Direct effect of provisions
d. Founding values
e. Judicial system
- Necessary to examine whether the ISDS mechanism prevents the EU
from operating in accordance to its constitutional framework
○ CJEU ruled that it is compatible with EU law provided certain safeguards are in
place
WEEK 1: AUTONOMY OF EU LAW
Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos
Main Focus: Direct Effect of EU Law & Article 30 TFEU (12 EEC)
- Direct Effect → Possibility for private parties to directly rely on EU law
before the Member States courts
- Article 12 EEC → Article 30 TFEU → Prohibition of custom duties
Parties:
● Plaintive - Van Gend
● Defendant - NL
Facts:
● Van Gend (company) claimed → NL infringed Article 12 EEC by imposing an
import duty on a chemical imported from
Germany
Questions:
1) Does Art 12 EEC have direct effect before national courts?
2) If so, whether changing the customs classification of the product with the effect of
making the customs duties higher, was in breach of the clause.
CJEU Ruling:
1) Art 30 has Direct Effect (para. 21)
2) CJEU no jurisdiction (para. 27)
- To understand whether custom duties or charges having equivalent effect are
contrary to Art 30 → Need to look at WHEN custom duties were applied at date of
entry into force of Treaty
- Increase of Tax → a) Re-arrangement of tariff due to
classification of product
b) Increase in rate of custom duty
Reasoning of CJEU:
● Community law has an authority which can be invoked by their nationals before those
courts and tribunals.
Effects/Importance of case
1. Inaugurated the Doctrine of direct effect
2. Empowering individuals to enforce rights from EU law before national courts
,Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL
Main Focus: Primacy/Precedence/Supremacy of EU law over national law → Nature of EU law
- Reaffirmed doctrine of Direct Effect
Parties:
● Plaintive - Mr Costa
● Defendant - ENEL
Facts
● Italy nationalised production + distribution of electricity
● Mr Costa → Felt affected by measure taken by Italian gov ENEL
○ Claimed: Nationalising act infringed Art 102,93,53,37 EEC
● Italian Courts → Dismissed case
○ National law > EU law (para. 6)
○ Costa appealed to CJEU
CJEU Ruling
● EC is a community → Legal order independent of national orders (para. 8)
○ MS obliged to apply EU law + ensure precedence
- Law stemming from the Treaty cannot be overridden by
domestic legal provisions (para 12)
○ Precedence confirmed by Article 288 TFEU (para 11)
Effects/Importance of case
1) Established the principle of the supremacy of EU law
2) EU law has direct effect
- Direct applicability of EU law makes provisions uniformly applicable in all MS’s
Opinion 2/13 EU Accession to ECHR
Main Focus: Whether the draft agreement for accession to ECHR is compatible with the
autonomy of EU Law
Issue:
● Is the draft agreement providing accession to the ECHR compatible with the treaties?
● Are the legal arrangements proposed in conformity with the requirements laid down in
Article 6(2) & the treaties?
○ Requirements: a) Accession shall not affect EU’s competences
b) Accession must preserve specific features of EU law
c) Accession cannot affect the powers of the institutions or Article
344 TFEU Protocol No 8 EU
d) Accession cannot affect situation of MS in relation to the ECHR
,Problems to EU Accession
1) Subject to external control to ensure the observance of the rights & freedoms of
the ECHR
○ Article 1 ECHR (para 181)
- Result: The EU & its institutions would be subject to control mechanisms
provided by the ECHR → violate EU autonomy
2) Treat the EU as a state = (equal role as other Contracting Parties)
● Would break mutual trust
○ Mutual trust → MS’s share & recognise they share a set of common
values on which the EU is founded (para 168)
a. Trust that those values are recognised,
implemented & respected
b. Considers that all MS’s are complying with EU law
(para 191)
c. MS cannot demand a higher level of fundamental
rights protection than EU law
d. Cannot check whether another MS has observed
those guarantees
○ With Accession → MS to check whether other MS’s have observed
fundamental rights
- Result: Undermines autonomy of EU law
3) Preliminary ruling procedure may be circumvented (para 198)
○ Protocol No 16 → Allows highest courts & tribunals to request advisory opinions
from the ECtHR
- EU law requires these courts to submit a request to the CJEU
4) Co Respondent Mechanism
- AIM: avoid gaps in enforceability of ECHR due to EU’s accession (para. 215)
- Art 3(2) draft: when application is directed against MS, EU may become a
co-respondent if it appears that compatibility of EU law with Convention
is called into question
- Allow EU to become party to proceedings
- CJEU: incompatible with CJEU exclusive jurisdiction in determining division of
powers between EU MS
5) CFSP Judicial Review
- EU Law Now: certain aspects of CFSP fall outside ambit of judicial review of CJEU
- After accession: ECtHR → empowered to rule on compatibility with ECHR where
CJEU can’t
, Opinion 1/17 CETA
Main Focus: whether the CETA ISDS is compatible with EU Law regarding the autonomy of EU
- Autonomy of EU Law: asserts that the EU is a distinct legal system operating
independently from its Member States
Facts:
● CETA → Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (Between EU & Canada)
- Free trade agreement on reduction of custom duties and non-tariff barriers to
trade in goods and services
○ Controversial → Investor Stated Dispute Resolution (ISDS) mechanism
- Aim: Establishment of a permanent Tribunal
- Issues of permanent tribunal
a. Decisions can be appealed before a court of appeal
- For disputes between investors & the EU, the MSs
or Canada
- Would affect autonomy of EU law
b. May affect the power of the institutions
○ EU & MSs have to sign & ratify CETA
- Problem: Some MS have not ratified it→ Preventing it from entering into
Force
Ex: Belgium → Opinion on the
compatibility of ISDR with Treaties
Question:
- Is Section F Ch 8 CETA compatible with EU Treaties?
CJEU Answer
- Section F of Chapter 8 of CETA Is compatible with EU primary law
Ruling:
● Compatibility with EU’s autonomy
○ Establishing the tribunal is only compatible with EU law if it has no adverse effect
on the autonomy of the EU legal order (para 108)
- Autonomy: a. Treaties
b. Its primacy
c. Direct effect of provisions
d. Founding values
e. Judicial system
- Necessary to examine whether the ISDS mechanism prevents the EU
from operating in accordance to its constitutional framework
○ CJEU ruled that it is compatible with EU law provided certain safeguards are in
place
