The latest on the Zambrano front – the Chavez-Vilchez judgment

snow-933283_1920

by Sophie Perez Fernandes, Junior Editor

Back in 2011, the ECJ delivered a pivotal decision in the Zambrano case. With reference to the Rottmann case, the ECJ held that “Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures which have the effect of depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union.”

By this criterion are included within the scope of application of EU law situations which, a priori, fall within the competence of the Member States (the so-called purely internal situations). The Zambrano-criterion indeed allows EU citizens to rely on their status as EU citizens against their own Member States of nationality even when they have not exercised their rights of free movement. The immediate consequence of the Zambrano ruling was to preclude Member States (in casu, Belgium) from refusing third country national parents of minor EU citizens a right of residence in the Member State of residence and nationality of those children in so far as such decisions would result in the children having to leave the territory of the Union as a whole.

The subsequent case-law gave a rather narrow interpretation to the criterion, as can be confirmed by the judgments delivered in McCarthy, Dereci, Iida, O and S, Ymeraga, Alokpa and NA. The ECJ held the Zambrano-criterion as a specific criterion as it relates to “very specific situations” in which a right of residence may not, exceptionally, be refused to a third country national without the EU citizenship enjoyed by (minor) Member States nationals being (fundamentally) undermined. It thus follows that any right of residence conferred on third country nationals pursuant to Article 20 TFEU are rights derived from those enjoyed by the EU citizen of which they are members of the family and have, in particular, “an intrinsic connection with the freedom of movement and residence of a Union citizen”.

Without calling into question or reversing this line of jurisprudence, the ECJ seems however willing to revive the Zambrano-criterion in more recent cases, addressing some issues so far left in the open. In CS and Rendón Marín, though admitting the possibility of limiting the derived right of residence flowing from Article 20 TFEU to third country nationals (limitation based on grounds of public policy or public security), the ECJ framed the scope of such a limitation, making its application conditional on a case-by-case analysis and upon respect for fundamental rights as protected by the CFREU, namely Articles 7 and 24(2) CFREU. The ECJ further clarified the scope of the Zambrano-criterion as the ultimate link with EU law for the purposes of the protection of fundamental rights in the Chavez-Vilchez judgment delivered last week.
Continue reading “The latest on the Zambrano front – the Chavez-Vilchez judgment”

On the CJEU’s post-Brexit case-law on European citizenship. The recovery of the identity Ariadne’s thread?

23896739209_9e171a11d9_o

by Professor Alessandra Silveira, Editor

The CJEU over the years has helped forging a concept of citizenship directed to be the “fundamental status of Member States nationals”. However, since the ruling Dereci of 2011, the proactivity of the CJEU concerning the development of the European citizenship seemed to have gradually exhausted its potentialities, mostly on the so-called social citizenship. It happens, tough, that the crucial moment the European Union faces demands the enhancement of its vertical relation with the citizens it upholds – it is either this or fragmentation. And maybe this is the subliminal message from the CJEU in three post-Brexit rulings that, decided in the Grand Chamber, surprisingly recover and develop the most emblematic case-law about the European citizenship – namely the Rottmann[i] and Zambrano[ii] rulings – whose political potential and/or identity potential seemed irrevocably muzzled.

In the ruling Rendón Marín[iii] and CS[iv], the core issue involved the expulsion and the automatic refusal of the concession of residence to third states nationals who have a dependent minor European citizen – in  both cases due to the parent’s criminal records. The CJEU recovered the Zambrano assertion, according to which Article 20, TFEU precludes national provisions that have the effect of depriving citizens of the Union of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of their status as citizens of the Union[v] and, in this sense, it must be attributed the derived right of residence to the national from a third State, under this risk of the useful effect of the European citizenship being affected, if the minor is forced to leave the territory of the Union to follow his/her parent[vi]. In both rulings, the novelty is the way the CJEU appreciates, in the light of the fundamental rights of the European citizen, the possibility of a Member State to introduce limits to such derived right of residence which arises from Article 20, TFEU.

Continue reading “On the CJEU’s post-Brexit case-law on European citizenship. The recovery of the identity Ariadne’s thread?”

Summary of Comission v. Belgium – C-275/83

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

Keywords: Social Security; Pensions; Regulation; Resident

Court: CJEU| DateMarch 28th 1983 | Case: C-275/83 | Applicants: European Comission vs Belgium

Summary:  European Comission brought an action pursuant the article 169 of the EEC Treaty against Beligum for disrespect of the obligations under article 33 of regulation n. 1408/71 that involves the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families. The mentioned article provides that pension’s deductions may be made by an institution of a Member State only for people in these conditions: maternity leave or sickness. However this deductions have to be made by an institution of this Member State wherever could be the actual residence of one persons within the EU. CJEU concluded that the law in force was not comply with the requirements of Community Law.

The decision can be acessed here and the opinion of AG here.

Summary of Cassis Dijon – C-120/78

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

Keywords: Common Market; Spirit Drinks, Importation, Minimum Content, Cassis Dijon

Court: CJEU| Date:  Feb. 20th 1979 | Case: C-120/78 | Applicants: Rewe-Zentral AG vs Bundesmonopolverwaltung Für Branntwein

Summary:  Rene-Zentral is a central cooperative undertaking that imports good from other Member States. On 14th September 1976 the company requested authorization for Bundesmonopolverwaltung (Federal Monopoly Administration for Spirits) to import a spirit drink called “Cassis Dijon”. Administration told to Rene-Zentral that there was no need to ask for authorization to import goods, however “Cassis Dijon” couldn’t be sold in Germany because the spirit drink didn’t fulfil the requirements of alcohol (wine-spirits must be around 32% and the mentioned mark had around 20%). Rene claimed that the German provision represented a restriction for the free movement of goods and contrary to article 30 and 37 of the EEC Treaty. Rene brought an action against the decision and the Court suspended the action and referred the following questions to CJEU:

Continue reading “Summary of Cassis Dijon – C-120/78”

Summary of Internationale Handelsgesellschaft – 11/70

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

Keywords: Deposit, Export licence, force majeure

Court: CJEU| DateDecember 12nd 1970 | Case: 11/70 | Applicants: Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH vs Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel

Summary:  Internationale Handelsgesellschaft is an import-export undertaking. The company obtained 20 000 metric tons of maize meal with validity until 31st December 1967. According to article 12 of Regulation No 120/67 in what concerns to market of cereals. When the licence expired and the company delivered approximately 11 000 metric tons of cereal. After, Einfuhrund Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel declared the deposit forfeited according to Regulation No 473/67/EEC. The undertaking brought an action to court against this decision. The Court suspended the action and sent to CJEU the following questions:

Are the obligation to export, laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 12 (1) of Regulation No 120/67/EEC of the Council of 13 June 1967, the lodging of a deposit, upon which such obligation is made conditional, and forfeiture of the deposit, where exportation is not effected during the period of validity of the export licence, legal? Continue reading “Summary of Internationale Handelsgesellschaft – 11/70”

Summary of Vassen Göbells – C-61/65

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

Keywords: Pension, Sickness, Enforceable provisions, Survivors

Court: CJEU| DateDecember 10th 1965 | Case: C-61/65 | Applicants: Mrs Vassen vs Management of the Beambtendfonds voor het Mijnbedrif, Heerlen

Summary: Mrs Vassen was a widow of a mining employer. She was receiving a pension from a pension fund of the social secutrity (BFM), who placed her as a member of a sickness fund. On 31st August 1963 she went to live in Germany. She asked to remove her name from the list, and so the BFM replied saying that her name wasn’t on the list since she went to live in Germany. When Mrs Vassen asked to re-enter on the list, BFM rejected. The Court suspended the works and referred the following question to CJEU:

Is the scheme laid … to be regarded as legislation, as defined in Article 1 (b) of Regulation No 3 and mentioned in Article 4 thereof? Furthermore can the said scheme governing sickness expenses be classified as ‘sickness insurance for mine workers (benefits in cash and in kind in the event of sickness and maternity)’ listed at (i) under the heading ‘Netherlands’ in Annex B to Regulation No 3, to which Article 3 of the said Regulation refers? Thus does Regulation No 3 (and also Regulation No 4) apply to non-manual workers employed in the Netherlands mining industry to whomthe said scheme governing sickness expenses is applicable?
Continue reading “Summary of Vassen Göbells – C-61/65”

Summary of Tetra Pak – T-51/89

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

Keywords: Common Market, Abuse, Dominant Position, European Commission, Exemption.

Court: CJEU, General Court | DateJune 10th 1990 | Case: T-51/89 | Applicants: Tetra Pak Raussing S.A. vs European Commission

Summary: On 26th July 1988, European Commission declared that Tetra Pak Raussing S.A. was in breach of article 86 of the EEC Treaty because by purchasing LiquiPak, they would have access to LiquiPak’s exclusivity contract of patent. This exclusive licence relates to a new UHT milk-packaging process. On 26th June 1986, EloPak made a complaint to the European Commission contesting TetraPak act according to articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty. European Commission concluded that TetraPak infringed article 86 of the EEC Treaty by abusing its dominant position. TetraPak contested the decision and appealed to First Instance Court based on the argument that European Commission couldn’t disallow the deal based on article 86 when this deal is an exemption to n.3 of article 85 of the EEC Treaty. This argument is separated in three sub-categories:

Continue reading “Summary of Tetra Pak – T-51/89”

Summary of Brasserie du Pêcheur & Factortame – C-46/93 and C-48/93

 

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

Keywords: liability of the state; legislator; claims; repair; individual’s rights

Court: CJEU | DateMarch 5th 1996 | Cases: C46/93 and C-48/93 | Applicants: Brasserie du Pêcheur vs Federal Republic of Germany

Summary: This judgment contains two similar cases connected to the same matter: liability of the State.

In the first case, the French company Brasserie du Pêcheur was obliged to cease their exportations from Germany due to German authorithies’ allegations that the beer did not fulfill purity requirement. European Comission interfered in this case and stated that this provisions were contrary to article 30 of EEC Treaty and brought an infringement proceedings against German Federal Republic. On 12th March 1987, the court confirmed EC’s arguments and consequently condemned the German act. Therefore, Brasserie du Pêcheur moves another action to reclaim their losses. The Court had doubts related to the limits of liability of the State and internal law and so they decided to send a question to the CJEU.

In the second case, Factortame intented an action in High Court of Justice with the purpose to challenge the compatibility of Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act with article 52 of the EEC Treaty. This law predicted a new register for British fishing boats and it pretended to obligate vessel’s registration, including those already registered, according to some conditions relating to nationality. The boats that couldn’t be registered were forbidden to fish. In another previous judgement, CJEU considered that this law was contrary to Communitary law, but it was not contrary that all the boats in UK suffered more controled by the authorities. On 4th August 1989, European Comission brought infringement proceedings against UK to suspend nationality requests because they were contrary to articles 7, 52 and 221 of the EEC Treaty. Afterwards, the Court decided to call the intervenients to show the amount of claims, however the Court had doubts in what refers to include a claim for inconstitutional behaviour and send a question to CJEU.

Continue reading “Summary of Brasserie du Pêcheur & Factortame – C-46/93 and C-48/93”

Summary of Costa/ENEL – 6/64

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

Keywords: primacy; competition rules; non-discrimination; nationalisation; state aid.

Court: CJEU | DateJuly 15th 1964 | Case: 6/64 | Applicants: Faminio Costa vs Ente Nazionale Energica Elettrica

Summary: The Italian Republic nationalized the production and distribution of electric energy. In the middle of the proceedings, Mr Costa, shareholder of an energy company affected by the sector nationalization requested the application of article 177 of EEC Treaty to obtain the interpretation of articles 102, 93, 53 and 37 of the same treaty. To Mr Costa, this nationalization infringed the articles mentioned above. The Giudice Consiliatore decided to send a question to CJEU:

“Having regard to Article 177 of the Treaty of25 March 1957 establishing the EEC, incorporated into Italian law by Law No 1203 of 14 October 1957, and having regard to the allegation that Law No 1643 of6 December 1962 and the presidential decrees issued in execution of that Law (No 1670 of 15 December 1962, No 36 of 4 February 1963, No 138 of25 February 1963 and No 219 of 14 March 1963) infringe Articles 102, 93, 53 and 37 of the aforementioned Treaty, the Court hereby stays the proceedings and orders that a certified copy of the file be transmitted to the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community in Luxembourg.’”

Continue reading “Summary of Costa/ENEL – 6/64”

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”