EU Revision Bundle: Institutions & Theories

The European Economic Community (EEC) Treaty creates a new legal order that surpasses national laws, where Member States have limited their sovereign rights. This order benefits both the Member States and their citizens.

The EEC Treaty not only imposes obligations on Member States but also grants rights to individuals. These rights come from the Treaty's explicit provisions and the obligations it sets for both Member States and citizens.

Article 12 of the EEC Treaty prohibits increasing customs duties. This prohibition is directly applicable and affects the legal relationship between Member States and their citizens.

Individuals can rely on EEC Treaty provisions as a defense in national courts. The fact that the Commission and Member States can take action against states for breaches doesn't prevent individuals from using these provisions.

To determine if a customs duty increase is unlawful under Article 12, the Court examines the duties and charges applied when the EEC Treaty entered into force.

A duty increase can happen not just from raising the customs duty rate but also from reclassifying a product to a higher taxed category.

While the Court didn't decide on the product's classification, it stated that if the duty after the Treaty's entry was higher than before, it's illegal under Article 12.

The decision on costs is a matter for the Tariefcommissie.

The European Union (EU) has the sole authority to negotiate and conclude international agreements related to its common commercial policy.

The EU's common commercial policy deals with trade between the EU and other countries, not trade within the EU.

International agreements involving intellectual property fall under the EU's common commercial policy if they directly impact international trade.

To qualify under the EU's common commercial policy, an international agreement needs to promote, facilitate, or govern trade between the EU and other countries.

An international agreement affecting trade must directly and noticeably influence trade patterns and relationships between countries.

The Lisbon Agreement aimed to streamline international registration of appellations of origin and geographical indications, simplifying trade for producers.

The Lisbon Agreement ensures reciprocal protection of appellations of origin and geographical indications between signatory countries, promoting fair trade practices.

The Lisbon Agreement removes the need for individual registrations in each participating country, reducing burdens and fostering trade by simplifying the process.

A principle in EU law that states that if EU law provides a standard of fundamental rights equivalent to or greater than the German constitution, the German Constitutional Court will not review EU law for compatibility with its constitution.

A landmark ruling that established the supremacy of European Union (EU) law over national law, ensuring EU law prevails over national law in cases of conflict.

The European arrest warrant (EAW) is a mechanism that enables the swift transfer of individuals between EU member states for criminal prosecution or to serve a sentence.

In legal proceedings, the absence of a defendant at trial. While the trial continues, the defendant is not physically present.

Article 37(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits new measures that discriminate between Member States regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed. It creates individual rights for citizens.

The right of establishment, enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, ensures that individuals and companies can set up businesses in any EU member state without facing unjustified restrictions.

Article 53 of the Treaty on the Founding of the European Economic Community prohibits Member States from introducing new restrictions on the freedom of establishment, thereby protecting individual rights for those wanting to set up businesses within the EU.

The principle of supremacy means that EU law takes precedence over national law when they conflict. This ensures uniformity and effectiveness of EU laws across all member states.

A Member State cannot deny a right of residence to the same-sex spouse of a Union citizen if the marriage was legally recognized in another Member State.

A third-country national same-sex spouse has the right to reside in the EU member state where their EU citizen spouse is a national for a period exceeding three months. Conditions for residency cannot be stricter than those outlined in Article 7 of Directive 2004/38.

This article establishes that a Member State must legally acknowledge a same-sex marriage concluded in another Member State for the purpose of granting the non-EU spouse the right of residence within its borders.

This case focused on whether German law was compatible with EU law in denying social assistance benefits to a Polish national and his children based on their right of residence stemming from Article 10 of Regulation 492/2011.

This regulation establishes provisions for the right of residence and social benefits for workers and their families within the European Union.

This directive outlines the conditions for entry and residence for EU citizens and their family members in another EU member state.

This article of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) ensures that a Member State must not discriminate against Union citizens and their family members.

This article of Directive 2004/38 ensures equal treatment for EU citizens.

The CJEU prioritizes cases dealing with important legal issues and employs procedural tools to speed up decision making.

The EU exerts more control over national courts through its 'Rule of Law' jurisprudence, impacting internal judicial procedures and organization.

The emphasis is shifting towards a more decentralized EU legal system, with national courts asserting their autonomy in interpreting EU law.

National courts are taking a more proactive role in interpreting EU law, especially when it comes to fundamental rights.

The CJEU has provided clear guidance on what constitutes a court for the purposes of the Preliminary Reference Procedure.

The EU makes it clear that national lower courts must refer questions related to the validity of EU acts to the CJEU.

Certain situations justify national courts not referring a case to the CJEU, as established in the CILFIT ruling.

States can be held liable for breaching EU law, including instances where they fail to refer a case to the CJEU as required.

Member States are not implementing EU law when they set conditions for granting and the scope of healthcare benefits.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) recognized a fundamental right to access adequate healthcare. If a Member State cannot provide this standard, they must reimburse patients who seek treatment in another Member State.

Elchinov case involved a patient with eye cancer who sought specialized radiotherapy in Germany after Bulgaria's treatment options were deemed insufficient. The ECJ ruled that Bulgaria was obligated to reimburse the patient's expenses.

Watts case concerned a British patient facing a lengthy wait for hip surgery. To avoid further pain and work disruption, they traveled to France for quicker treatment. The ECJ affirmed the right to access healthcare within a reasonable time frame and ordered reimbursement.

Petru case involved a Romanian patient needing urgent open-heart surgery. Lack of adequate medical supplies in Romania prompted her to seek treatment in Germany. The ECJ upheld the right to reimbursement for essential medical care.

The Tjebbes case involved four individuals holding dual nationalities and residing outside the Netherlands and the EU for ten years. They lost their Netherlands nationality due to a legal provision. The ECJ ruled that this provision violated EU law.

The ECJ rulings in the Elchinov, Watts, and Petru cases created a fundamental right to access adequate healthcare within a reasonable time frame and affirmed the principle of reimbursement by Member States for treatment sought in other EU countries.

The Tjebbes case demonstrates the ECJ's commitment to protecting EU citizens' fundamental rights, even in cases involving national laws on nationality.