EU law exam 2014. Zone B

Standard

 

‘The aim of the European Union is European integration. However, the European Union does not enforce its law on its own but relies on the administrative bodies of the Member States. This creates the danger that the application of European law may diverge between the Member States. Diverging application between the now 27 member States would in turn endanger the aim of European integration. Hence, the concept of supremacy of European Union law aims at guaranteeing the uniform application of European Union law within the Member States. This explains the rigid stance adopted by the Court in applying such a principle.’ Discuss. 2. ‘The European Union is first and foremost a Community based on respect for the rule of law of which the European Court of Justice is the guardian.’ Discuss with reference to the role played by the EU judicial institutions in shaping the EU legal order. 3. SuperSpecs is a UK Company which produces and sells optical products and services. It wants to expand its activities in Germany and starts circulating advertisements offering its customers free eyesight examinations in the new shops they intend to open. The German Consumer Protection authorities order the withdrawal of these advertisements as German law prohibits any commercial exploitation of medical services and requires that eye examinations be carried out only by qualified ophthalmologists. Advise SuperSpecs whether the German measures violate EU law. 4. John, a British national, went to Spain five years ago. He worked for a bank in Madrid until six months ago when he was convicted and sentenced to twelve months in prison for possessing an illegal firearm on bank premises. He is scheduled to be released next month, on account of his good behaviour. The Spanish authorities have stated that they will seek his deportation to the United Kingdom immediately on his release. Carla, John’s wife, is a Spanish national. She claims that John’s deportation will leave her without any financial support and will endanger her marriage. In addition, she will also have difficulties looking after their son Francisco, who has learning difficulties. Advise John, Carla, and Francisco as to their rights under EU law. UL14/0551 Page 3 of 4 5. Biborova is a Latvian company producing vodka. It is particularly well known for ‘Bibotal’, a line of ready-made vodka cocktails that it markets in one-litre plastic bottles. Bibotal is marketed and sold for consumption in private homes, and is not distributed to bars or restaurants. Biborova now decides to enter the Polish market with Bibotal but encounters several difficulties. First, the Intoxicating Substances Law of 2003 in Poland provides that intoxicating substances can only be marketed in glass bottles for reasons of consumer protection and public health. Biborova will thus incur high packaging costs in order to be able to sell its products on the Polish market. Secondly, according to the Advertisement Law of 2004 in Poland, alcohol can only be advertised in bars, restaurants and specialised food magazines. Biborova fears that this will seriously diminish its chances of promoting Bibotal in the Polish market. Biborova thinks that the Intoxicating Substances Law of 2003 and the Advertisement Law of 2004 in Poland are contrary to European law. Advise Biborova. 6. ‘The question then is whether this Charter (the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) is likely to be an effective instrument for the furtherance of peoples’ rights in other countries, or for the protection of our own rights in instances where they are not fully enforced or respected. The answer, unfortunately, is quite clearly “No”. By its own account, the Charter merely establishes the rights which already exist on the basis of the common constitutional traditions and international obligations of the member states, listing the European Union’s own treaties and legal precedents as well as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The language of the Charter is also often vague to the point of meaninglessness.’ Discuss. 7. ‘To accept an endless variation on the application of the proportionality test endangers the uniform application of EU law as this test is becoming too unpredictable. The Court should at least make explicit the criteria it uses to determine what kind of scrutiny it employs to determine the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Members States’ actions.’ Discuss. UL14/0551 Page 4 of 4 8. ‘Recent judgments in the “post-Zambrano” phase clearly show that the Court is revisiting its case law on the application of EU citizenship rights.’ Discuss.

 

Advertisements

About Calers

Born Belfast 1971. I read history at Edinburgh. I did a Master's at UCL. I have semi-libertarian right wing opinions. I am married with a daughter and a son. I am allergic to cats. I am the falling hope of the not so stern and somewhat bending Tories. I am a legal beagle rather than and eagle. Big up the Commonwealth of Nations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s