Summary of Simmenthal – 106/77

by José Ricardo Sousa, student of the Master's degree in EU Law of UMinho

Keywords: EU law application; national law; legal orders; uniformity; free movement of goods.

Court: CJEU | DateMarch 9th 1978 | Case: 106/77 | Applicants: Simmenthal S.p.A. vs Amministrazione Delle Finanze pello Stato

Summary: On 26th July 1973 Simmenthal imported beef for human consumption from France and they had to pay its respective fee importation for public health inspection. About this matter, it was Simmenthal’s opinion that this inspection clearly violated the fundamental principles of Common Market (in this case, free movement of goods). So, Simental brought an action to court with the intention to be repaid for the mentioned illegal (for their point of view) fee. The Court, Pretore di Suza accepted Simmenthal arguments and condemned Administrazione delle Finanze pello Stato (therefore, administrazione) to repay the company. Not satisfied with the decision, Admnistrazione appealed against the order to repay arguing with some rulings by the constitutional jurisdiction regarding the conflict between Community law and National law. The Court suspended and referred a question to CJEU:

Continue reading “Summary of Simmenthal – 106/77”

Advertisements

Summary of Francovich – 6/90

by José Ricardo Sousa, student of the Master's degree in EU Law of UMinho

Keywords: social policy; liability; directive implementation; failure to fulfil an obligation; compensation.

Court: CJEU | DateNov. 19th 1991 | Case: 6/90 | Applicants: Andrea Francovich vs Italian Republic

Summary: The Directive 80/897 goal was to assure a minimum protection for all European workers in case of bankruptcy of a company. For this purpose, it predicted specific guarantees for the payment of claims relating to debt remuneration. Italian Government didn’t implement the mentioned policy in time. Mr Francovich and Mrs Bonifaci filed in court arguing that it was the Italian Government’s obligation to implement the Directive 80/897 and so they claimed a state compensation. The national court suspended the case and referred the following questions to CJEU:

“Under the system of Community law in force, is a private individual who has been adversely affected by the failure of a Member State to implement Directive 80/897 — a failure confirmed by a judgment of the Court of Justice — entitled to require the State itself to give effect to those provisions of that directive which are sufficiently precise and unconditional, by directly invoking the Community legislation against the Member State in default so as to obtain the guarantees which that State itself should have provided and in any event to claim reparation of the loss and damage sustained in relation to provisions to which that right does not apply?”

Continue reading “Summary of Francovich – 6/90”

Summary of CILFIT – 283/81

by José Ricardo Sousa, student of the Master's degree in EU Law of UMinho

Keywords: Common Market; Court of Justice; Question; Article 177; Member States.

Court: CJEU | DateOct. 6th 1982Case: 283/81 | Applicants: Srl CILFT vs Italian Minister of Health.

Summary: Since the adoption of the Italian Law nº 30 of January’68, textile firms had paid by way of fixed health inspection levy a certain amount of wool, until the application of law nº1239 of December’70. The last mentioned law amended the levy, but textile firms had been required to pay a sum of the levy. Tribunal di Roma dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal in October’76. They argued that Law nº 1968 was inapplicable because Regulation (EEC) nº 827/68 was adopted. Court of Appeal had also given reason to Ministry of Health. In October ’79, Ministry of Health lodged the judgement of Court of Appeal and added that wool was not included in Annex II of EEC Treaty, so it’s the states’ competence to rule on the matter, and they said that it wasn’t necessary to send any question to CJEU because the case was very clear. According to MoH’s arguments the Court of Appeal found a relevant question to send to the CJEU involving article 177 of the Treaty:

Continue reading “Summary of CILFIT – 283/81”

Summary of Van Gend en Loos – Case 26/62

by José Ricardo Sousa, student of the Master's degree in EU Law of UMinho

Keywords: direct effect; tax; legal order; common market; particular

Court: CJEU | Date: Feb. 5th 1963 | Case: 26/62 | Applicants: Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration

Summary: The transport company Van Gend en Loos imported a certain quantity of urea-methanal, which belonged to a specific category in the tariff of import duties list (implies 10% tax). After that, the transport company introduced an objection against the application of this duty, with the argument that the urea-methanal was in another category duties (only implies 3% tax) when the EEC treaty entered in force in 1958. Therefore, the Dutch Government infringed the 12 article of EEC Treaty, which provides Member States to change or introduced any new customs duties.

Thus, the Inspector of Customs and Excise at Zaandam dismissed the objection of Van Gend because it was “not directed against the actual application of the tariff but against the rate”. Furthermore, Nederlandes administratie der belastingen stated that when the EEC Treaty entered into force, this product was incorporated in another category, which had the same tax (10%) as the new category, so it wasn’t raised any rate. The national court suspended the proceedings and referred two questions to the CJEU about this matter:

Continue reading “Summary of Van Gend en Loos – Case 26/62”

Summary of Rottmann – Case C-135/08

by Daniela Cardoso, Jurist and Collaborating Member of CEDU 

Keywords: Citizenship of the Union; nationality of one Member State acquired by birth; nationality of another Member State acquired by naturalisation; loss of original nationality by reason of that naturalisation; loss with retroactive effect of nationality acquired by naturalisation on account of deception practised in that acquisition;  statelessness leading to loss of the status of citizen of the Union.

Court: ECJ | Date: March 2 2010 | Case: C-135/08 | Applicants: Janko Rottmann v. Freistadt Bayern

Summary: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) was referred for a preliminary ruling on proceedings that concerned a decision withdrawing the nationality, granted by way of naturalisation that, in turn, would result in the loss of the status of citizen of the Union.

Rottmann, an Austrian citizen, had acquired the German nationality through a naturalisation process from which, in accordance with the Austrian legislation, he automatically would lose his nationality of origin. The German authorities later found out that Rottmann had omitted the fact of being previously involved in serious criminal proceedings, and of being the main target of an arrest warrant. Due to this predicament, the German authorities decided to withdrew the German naturalisation with retroactive effect, on the grounds that the applicant had obtained German nationality by deception. Since these proceedings would result in the loss of the German nationality and, therefore, the citizen of the Union status as well, leaving him stateless, Rottmann challenged the decision from the German authorities.

The analysis made by the ECJ started to consider that, according to international law, it is within the competence of Member States to establish the conditions in which there is acquisition or loss of nationality. However, it also acknowledged that the exercise of this power can be subjected to further judicial control, when it affects rights and guarantees covered by EU law.

In fact, it is in the legitimate interest of the Member States to protect and foment the solidarity and good-faith relations among the State and their nationals, guaranteeing their loyalty, relation in which the concession of nationality is based. Accordingly, the ECJ states that EU law does not oppose to a decision of a Member State decision withdrawing the nationality, granted by way of naturalisation, when it was obtained by fraud, and as long as that decision goes through the proportionality test in regard to its consequences and effects in terms of EU law.

It is also relevant to highlight the opinion of the Advocate General which defended that there is a relation of reciprocity between the acquisition of nationality and the exercise of the rights that arise from the Treaty. Accordingly, the imposition of loyalty and good-faith in the process of acquisition of nationality, demanded by Germany, does not violate any EU law provision. Moreover, international law does not prohibit the loss of nationality even when the result is the statelessness.

The decision can be accessed here and the conclusions here.

Continue reading “Summary of Rottmann – Case C-135/08”