Summary of Simmenthal – 106/77

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgments1 Comment 
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 | Date: March 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” →

Solidarity with Brussels, the EU Capital

On By officialblogunioIn NewsLeave a comment

CeJGU3_WIAAESuW

▪

The Official Blog of UNIO joins the sentiment expressed worldwide towards Belgium after the heinous attacks today in Brussels, the European Union administrative de facto capital. Our thoughts go out to the victims, their families and every single person – EU citizens or not – who suffers from intolerance and violence. Integration and assimilation are even more needed at these times to affirm pluralism and intercultural tolerance. As our emotions meet the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’s ones, we must never forget nor abandon the values of our fundamental rights.

Picture credits: Untitled by Axel Darut.

The implementation of the Directive 2014/41/EU of 3rd April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order (EIO) in criminal matters: the way forward

On By officialblogunioIn EssaysLeave a comment 
100_4650.JPG


by Gemma Pérez Souto, Collaborating Member of CEDU
▪

The Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order (EIO) in criminal matters was approved on 3rd April 2014[i] to avoid the current fragmented framework and set up a comprehensive system for the gathering of evidence[ii] with a cross-border dimension in the area of freedom, security and justice, based on the principle of mutual recognition but also taking into account the flexibility of the existing system of mutual legal assistance.[iii]

The European Investigation Order will replace, as from 22nd May 2017, the corresponding provisions of International Conventions, Framework Decisions or Directives applicable between the Member States bound by this Directive referred to in Article 34 EIO. One of the key aspects of the new Directive relies on this question, as this instrument will replace in the future the traditional system of mutual legal assistance[iv] concerning obtaining evidence.[v]

In accordance with Article 1 EIO, a European Investigation Order is a judicial decision which has been issued or validated by a judicial authority of a Member State[vi] to have one or several specific measure (s) carried out in another Member State to obtain evidence[vii] in accordance with this Directive.[viii] With the adoption of the EIO Directive, the European Union shows that is determined to achieve a sort of ‘European Evidence Law’[ix] flexible and effective at the same time, in order to not only obtain evidence previously in possession of the authorities of another Member State (s), but also to carry out investigative measure (s) with a view to gathering evidence.

Continue reading “The implementation of the Directive 2014/41/EU of 3rd April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order (EIO) in criminal matters: the way forward” →

Summary of Francovich – 6/90

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
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 | Date: Nov. 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” →

The scope of application of the Services Directive – in need of clarification?

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
by Sophie Perez Fernandes, Junior Editor
▪

Two requests for a preliminary ruling concerning the Directive 2006/123[i] on services in the internal market were recently made to the ECJ. The joined cases concerned raise some fundamental questions relating to its scope of application.

The first case (C-340/14) concerns the application of Mr. Trijber for an authorisation for the transportation of passengers by water. Mr. Trijber wishes to use his boat, an open sloop powered by an electrical motor suitable for transporting small groups of persons, to carry passengers, in return for payment, on tours of Amsterdam by waterway for festive occasions. The second case (C-341/14) concerns the application of Mr. Harmsen for the operation of two window prostitution businesses in Amsterdam as well. Mr. Harmsen specified in his application that he would not rent out rooms to prostitutes with whom he could not communicate in English, Dutch or any other language comprehensible to him. Both applications were, for different reasons, denied by the competent national authorities.

Continue reading “The scope of application of the Services Directive – in need of clarification?” →

Summary of CILFIT – 283/81

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgmentsLeave a comment 
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 | Date: Oct. 6th 1982 | Case: 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

On By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgments4 Comments 
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” →

Editorial of March 2016

On By officialblogunioIn EditorialsLeave a comment 
24947332642_045d3ea406_z
by Allan F. Tatham, Professor at Facultad de Derecho, Universidad CEU San Pablo
 ▪

New Deal for the UK in Europe: Rewarding British particularism or Making Exceptionalism Acceptable?

And so British Prime Minister David Cameron, standing outside No. 10 Downing Street last Saturday, announced to a waiting nation (and Union) that he had wrested for the United Kingdom  almost all of the concessions he had been negotiating on with his EU Member State partners. What had once seemed as an almost Herculean task to achieve and an unprecedented one at that, has led to agreement with his fellow colleagues (no doubt grudgingly for some) in the European Council. Yes, Cameron was thus able to recommend to the British people on 20th February 2016 to accept the results of his “historic” renegotiation and vote for “Bremain” this summer; yes, the European Council has expressly recognized the constitutional and legal existence of a two- or multi-speed Europe[ii]; and, yes, the EU has accepted the existence – once again but in a much stronger version this time – of British particularism, in other words “in Europe but not of Europe” so to speak.

In the months leading up to the February European Council meeting, commentators canvassed the various options open to the UK were PM Cameron to have instead recommended a “Brexit” following negotiations and which might still happen if the popular vote in the 23rd June 2016 referendum were to show a majority in favour of leaving the EU.[iii] Among the possibilities considered have been: (1) UK membership of the European Economic Area (“EEA”) through reapplying for membership of the European Free Trade Association (“EFTA”) which would create the scenario of “back to the future” for the country as it was an original founding EFTA state in 1960, leaving to join the then European Economic Community in 1973; (2) a series of bilateral agreements between the UK and the EU, following Switzerland, each agreement being separately negotiated although the format is subject reconsideration by the EU; and (3) the Turkish model including a customs union, free movement of goods, and limited movement of workers as well as forming a strategic partnership in areas of mutual interest. Yet all three options would leave the UK woefully exposed internationally and in a very much weakened bargaining position outside the EU although probably still within the World Trade Organisation.

Continue reading “Editorial of March 2016” →

Eco and EU Culture. “The language of Europe is translation”

On By officialblogunioIn NewsLeave a comment

3381749342_ccbd0177c7_o

by Sérgio Maia Tavares Marques, Managing Editor
 ▪

Umberto Eco passed away this week but his words shall remain very much alive. Apart from his literary and semiology brilliance, Eco was an accurate observer of the European reality. For him, the Erasmus Programme is a sexual revolution that makes us all Europeans. A sort of spirit we can sense from – and that moved Bertolucci into his piece – The Dreamers.

He was supportive of the integration since his early days as he believed in the fundamental unity of the European culture. Moreover, he stated: “it´s culture that cements European identity”.

– How exactly? One may ask imaginarily.
– “We have too many languages and cultures, indeed (…)Europe is a continent that was able to fuse many identities (…) We know there are books we have yet to read that will help us reflect on cultures different from our own. Little by little: that is how our European identity will become more profound.”

Lyrically enough, instead of emphasizing the euro-crisis (and he highly regarded the values of the internal market), he suggested to print the faces of Dante, Shakespeare, Balzac or Rosselini in our Euro notes.

Umberto Eco’s lifetime reminds us all that, we do live under a Union based on the rule of law, we do benefit from an internal market and, essentially, we must live up to being surrounded by multilingualism, by a plural culture. This is what our existence is about – enabling ourselves to endless possibilities through the others. Through translating ourselves – beyond communicating, we translate to perceive, to know, to feel, to comprehend. Through at last achieving tolerance as we have been underlining this February on UNIO’s blog.

Afterall, la lingua dell’Europa è la traduzione, la langue de l’Europe, c’est la traduction, die sprache Europas ist die übersetzung, a língua da Europa é a tradução…

Picture credits: Umberto Eco  by giveawayboy.

 

Analysis of the Taricco Judgement: The EU’s Financial Interests Come First

On By officialblogunioIn Case notesLeave a comment 
by Daniela Guimarães, Collaborating Member of CEDU
 ▪

On 8th, September 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union reached a decision that draws consequences from the case law Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10, considering the standpoint of the protection of the financial interests of the European Union.

Mr. Ivo Taricco and other defendants, Italian citizens, were charged before the Tribunale di Cuneo (Italy), for having formed and organised during the fiscal years 2005 to 2009 a conspiracy to commit various offenses in relation to VAT. During their legal prosecution, several matters have arisen in the case causing delays in the process. Such delays can have serious consequences once the limitation period for each of the accused goes from six to seven years and even though that limitation period can be interrupted, it cannot be extended beyond a quarter of its initial duration (Articles 160 and 161, Italian Penal Code). According to the referring court, it is certain that all the offences will be time-barred before a final judgement can be delivered regarding the accused. The referring judge says that situations of “de facto impunity” in cases related to tax evasion are rather normal due to the mentioned Italian norms as they do not allow an extension of the limitation period in crimes such as the ones at stake. Being the criminal investigations, in most cases, of great complexity, often, the time-limit compromises an effective criminal prosecution. In practical terms, the statute of limitations regime in Italy can, actually, function as a “way out” for white collar crime offenders.

Continue reading “Analysis of the Taricco Judgement: The EU’s Financial Interests Come First” →