Case Law for EU Law Foundations

Case Name Significance of Case/ Case Facts Ruling

Van Gend en Loos Direct effect of primary law Dutch company imported chemicals European treaties gave rise to rights for
from Germany and were required to legal and natural persons that could be
Supremacy of EU law pay Dutch custom duties that differed invoked in national courts
from those imposed by the EEC Treaty European treaty law has direct effect
Q: could Van Gend en Loos invoke the
provisions in the Treaty in national
courts?
Recovery of Indirect Taxes Significance of case: Union can exceptionally use two legal bases if two different aims of a legislation are inseparably linked
(Commission v Council) Choice of legal basis must be based on ‘objective factors amenable to judicial review, which include the aim and content of
the measure’
Tobacco Advertising and Vodafone Limits to legal basis Art. 114 TFEU EU passed EU wide ban on tobacco The Directive was annulled
advertising in media – Germany The court established three constitutional
challenged the validity of the Directive limits to Art. 114:
I. EU law must harmonize national
laws
II. Differences in national law must
contribute to distortions in
competition/trade
III. EU law must contribute to
removing these obstacles
Titanium Dioxide Centre of gravity test Council unanimously enacted directive Directive was annulled – should have been
harmonizing rules on reduction of based on Art. 114
pollution caused by titanium dioxide. Center of gravity test established: correct
Commission/Parliament challenged legal basis chosen with regards to
 legality of directive predominant aim of legislation
Costa v ENEL Supremacy of EU law Costa was shareholders of private EC Treaty was a special legal order
company later nationalized by Italian Supremacy of EU (EC) law cannot be called
government – Costa argued the Italian into question by application of conflicting
nationalization was contrary to the EEC national laws
Treaty EU (EC) creates body of law which bind
both their nationals and MS
Van Duyn (Vertical) Direct effect of Van Duyn, Dutch national going to work Directives can be invoked by individuals in
Directives for Scientology office in UK was denied national courts – can produce direct effect
entry on grounds of public policy – Van (depending on nature, scheme and
Duyn challenged this decision with wording of the provision)
primary law (Art. 45 TFEU) and Directive
regarding migrant workers
Q: could she invoke the directive
against the state?
Becker (Vertical) Direct effect of non- Becker was credit negotiation and had MS had duty to adopt this Directive
implemented Directive to pay turnover tax on her income. (reference to Ratti case)
According to a Directive, she fell under Wherever the provisions of a direct appear
an exception. Germany failed to to be unconditional and sufficiently
implement this directive in time. precise, those provisions may, in absence
Q: could she rely on non-implemented of implementing measures, be relied upon
directive? against the State
Marshall Significance of case: Court established that Directives have no horizontal direct effect – Directives cannot be invoked in a
horizontal relationship between individual parties
Faccini Dori Lack of horizontal direct effect of Faccini Dori concluded a contract off- Directives do not impose obligations on
Directives premises with a private company for an individuals/private companies (reference
English language course. She wanted to to Marshall case)
cancel the contract but no national laws Failure to implement Directive only has
allowed it. She cancelled the course on bearing on State – estoppel principle
 the basis of Consumer Directive cannot be used against another individual
Q: could she rely on the Directive party
against the private company? Directive effect could not help Faccini Dori
Von Colson Indirect effect of Directives Two female social workers were National courts had to interpret the
discriminated against for the job in a Directive in light of its wording and its
prison and invoked national law which purpose (even though Directive had been
was the incorrect implementation of a implemented incorrectly)
Directive. National law would only allow The two women could receive
compensation for travel damages. compensation according to the Directive

Marleasing Indirect effect of Directives Spanish company relied on EC Company National courts have a duty to interpret
Directive which was not implemented in national law in a way that gave effect to
time by Spain. European law
Q: could non-transposed directive be Interpretation of national law in line with
invoked? Directives that are not implemented
Francovich State Liability Francovich only received sporadic Member State is liable to compensate for
payment from his company where he harm caused to individuals by breaching
was employed. EU Directive guaranteed EU law for which it is responsible
redundancy payment (even in cases of Liability for breaches of secondary law
insolvency) but left some legislative (mainly directives)
choice to the MS.
Brasserie du Pecheur Conditions for State Liability French brewery tried to export its beer Germany would be liable for its actions
to Germany but was not allowed to do which led to damage of brewery
so by German laws. German law was Conditions of state liability established:
declared illegal. Brewery brought claim I. Sufficiently serious breach by MS
against Germany for loss of sales II. Provision breached intended to
Q: was Germany liable for its national grant individuals rights
laws? III. Direct causal link between breach
and damage
 State liability also for breaches of primary
law
Kobler State liability for judicial breaches Austrian professor lost bonuses due to There is a possibility for state liability for
(only last instance) Austrian law. Case went to highest courts of last instance
Austrian instance which ruled Must be a sufficiently serious breach
incorrectly that there was no breach of In Kobler, no sufficient serious breach
EC law. because national court made an incorrect
Q: could the Austrian court be held reading of previous case law (excusable,
liable for its ruling? not intentional)
Foster v British Gas Significance of Case: CJEU established broad definition of State (to maximize vertical direct effect of Directives)
‘Emanation’ of state: any body made responsible for providing a public service under the control of the State and has for
that purpose special powers
Dillenkofer Non-implementation of a Directive Dillenkofer lost deposit on travel There should be a right to reparation
always sufficiently serious breach package after travel organizers declared The non-implementation of a Directive is a
insolvency. Germany had failed to sufficiently serious breach and can result in
transpose Directive intended to protect the liability of a State
customers against organizer’s
insolvency. Dillenkofer invoked
Germany’s liability for the non-
implementation.
Q: was Germany liable for failure to
implement?
CILFIT Significance of Case: CJEU established the exceptions to Art. 267(3), where a national court is not obliged to refer a
question to the CJEU
Acte clair: EU law provision in question is so clear that there is no scope for any reasonable doubt about its interpretation
Acte éclairé: provision has already been interpreted by CJEU
Foto-Frost Significance of Case: CJEU established that national courts cannot declare EU law invalid
CJEU has monopoly to invalidate EU law
Elchinov Significance of Case: CJEU established that national courts are not bound by precedents established by superior courts in
 circumstances where those precedents are incompatible with EU law
Broekmeulen Significance of Case: Established the criteria to determine whether a body is considered a court/tribunal under Art. 267
Criteria look at:
i. Body established by law
ii. Permanent body
iii. Jurisdiction is compulsory
iv. Procedure is inter partes
v. Independent body
vi. Case pending before it
vii. Case leads to decision of judicial nature
Star Fruit Commission discretion in Art. 258 Belgian banana trader alleged that it Commission has discretion under Art. 258
proceedings had been prejudiced by the to commence proceedings
organization of the French banana Commission’s discretion means that
market in a way contrary to EU law. It individuals cannot request that it
complained to Commission, but commence proceedings if it does not wish
Commission did not take action against to
France. Star Fruit brought claim against
Commission for failure to act.
Q: is Commission required to act under
Art. 258?
Plaumann Individual concern German authorities wanted to suspend Importer did not have legal standing to
custom duty on imports of clementines. challenge the refusal
They needed authorization from the The Decision was addressed to the German
Commission, which was refused. AN authorities and not to him – he had to
importer of clementines challenged the prove individual concern
validity of the Commission refusal. Individual concern: when an act affects an
Importer had to show he had individual applicant ‘by reason of certain attributes
concern. which are peculiar to them or by reason of
circumstances in which they are
 Q: did he have legal standing to differenced from all other persons’
challenge the decision?
Jégo-Quéré Reinforcement of individual Fishing company regulatory operated in The company did not have legal standing
concern waters on southern Ireland. It brought because there was no individual concern
an action against Regulation which GC: strict interpretation of person
required fishing vessels in those zones individually concerned
to use different/weaker nets. ECJ: legal and business interest is not
Q: did the company have standing to sufficient for individual concern – Jégo-
challenge the act? Quéré had no individual concern
Codorníu Significance of Case: case where a private party had legal standing and could invoke the individual concern

Inuit Definition of regulatory acts A Canadian Inuit organization The Regulation was a legislative act and
challenged a Regulation adopted under not a regulatory act
the OLP which banned the marketing of Regulatory acts: non-legislative acts of
Direct concern seal products within the EU, subject to a general application
number of exceptions. Applicants
claimed the Regulation was a regulatory Direct concern: act should directly affect
act. the legal situation of an applicant and
Q: was the regulation a regulatory act? there should be no discretion left to the
addresses of that act
Microban Significance of Case: CJEU re-established that ‘no further implementing measures’ meant immediate consequences
without implementing EU or national measures

Telefonica Significance of Case: CJEU re-established that ‘no further implementing measures’ meant immediate consequences
without implementing EU or national measures
T & L Sugars Definition of ‘no further Two sugar refiners challenged series of Regulatory acts which are then
implementing measures’ Commission regulations. These implemented by national authorities
regulations were implemented in remove the possibility for individuals to
Portugal through series of licenses to have legal standing to challenge those acts
importers and producers of sugar.
Q: did the refiners have legal standing
to challenge the regulations?
Schöppenstedt Significance of case: Damages may be obtained under Art. 340 TFEU as a result of sufficiently flagrant violations of EU law
by the Union.

Bergaderm Conditions for non-contractual A Commission Directive was restricting The Union was held liable for a manifest
liability of the Union the use of certain substances in sun tan and grave error of appraisal by the
lotion. Bergaderm, a manufacturer of a Commission
cosmetic product, was put into EU institutions can be held liable for
liquidation as a result of this measures. breaches of EU law – non-contractual
Bergaderm claimed that the liability
Commission had acted unlawfully by Conditions for EU liability (under Art. 340)
adopting the Directive. are the same as conditions for state
Q: could the Commission be held liable liability:
for its act? I. Sufficiently serious breach by MS
II. Provision breached intended to
grant individuals rights
III. Direct causal link between breach
and damage
Stork Significance of Case: Case portrayed initial lack of protection of human rights by the Commission. It was established that
the court could not examine a complaint ‘which maintains that… it infringed principles of German constitutional law’. This
demonstrated that the protection of fundamental rights was far from adequate.

Stauder Significance of Case: For the first time, the CJEU stated that it will ensure the respect of fundamental human rights
enshrined in the general principles of Community law.

Internationale Handelgesellschaft Significance of Case: CJEU held that the validity of EU measures cannot be challenged on grounds of national law rules or
concepts, even if that is a violation of fundamental human rights provisions in a MS’ constitution. The ECJ took on a role of
protecting the fundamental rights of individuals in the European legal order, allowing the German Constitutional Court to
be more accommodating to European law supremacy.

Nold Significance of Case: The CJEU reiterated that human rights are an integral part of the general principles of European Union
law and that the CJEU was bound to draw inspiration from the constitutional traditions common to the MS. Therefore, the
CJEU cannot uphold measures which are incompatible with fundamental rights recognized and protected in the
constitutions of MS.