13. Enforcement Actions Against Member States

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 463-495
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
The Uk

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. A crucial component of the Commission’s task is to monitor Member State compliance and to respond to non-compliance. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for various enforcement mechanisms involving judicial proceedings against the Member States, which are brought either by the Commission or - much less frequently - by a Member State. Article 258 TFEU establishes the general enforcement procedure, giving the Commission broad power to bring enforcement proceedings against Member States that it considers to be in breach of their obligations under EU law. This chapter discusses the function and operation of the infringement procedure; the relationship between ‘public’ and ‘private’ enforcement mechanisms; the Commission’s discretion; types of breach by Member States of EU law; state defences in enforcement proceedings; and the consequences of an Article 258 ruling. The UK version contains a further section analysing the extent to which Article 258 is relevant to the UK post-Brexit.

13. Enforcement Actions Against Member States

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 481-514
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
The Uk

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. A crucial component of the Commission’s task is to monitor Member State compliance and to respond to non-compliance. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for various enforcement mechanisms involving judicial proceedings against the Member States, which are brought either by the Commission or - much less frequently - by a Member State. Article 258 TFEU establishes the general enforcement procedure, giving the Commission broad power to bring enforcement proceedings against Member States that it considers to be in breach of their obligations under EU law. This chapter discusses the function and operation of the infringement procedure; the relationship between ‘public’ and ‘private’ enforcement mechanisms; the Commission’s discretion; types of breach by Member States of EU law; state defences in enforcement proceedings; and the consequences of an Article 258 ruling. The UK version contains a further section analysing the extent to which Article 258 is relevant to the UK post-Brexit.

12. Enforcement Actions Against Member States

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Crucial Component ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. A crucial component of the Commission’s task is to monitor Member State compliance and to respond to non-compliance. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for various enforcement mechanisms involving judicial proceedings against the Member States, which are brought either by the Commission or - much less frequently - by a Member State. Article 258 TFEU establishes the general enforcement procedure, giving the Commission broad power to bring enforcement proceedings against Member States that it considers to be in breach of their obligations under EU law. This chapter discusses the function and operation of the infringement procedure; the relationship between ‘public’ and ‘private’ enforcement mechanisms; the Commission’s discretion; types of breach by Member States of EU law; state defences in enforcement proceedings; and the consequences of an Article 258 ruling.

BENEFITS FOR EU CITIZENS: A U-TURN BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE?

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Welfare Benefits ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

THE recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Dano (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358) clarified some important points as regards access to social welfare benefits by EU citizens who move to another Member State. Furthermore, the judgment could have broad implications for any attempts by the UK Government to renegotiate the UK's membership of the EU, which is likely to focus on benefits for EU citizens coming to the UK. This note is an updated and expanded version of my analysis on the EU Law Analysis blog: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/benefit-tourism-by-eu-citizens-cjeu.html.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Member State Provisions Addressing Land Policy and Restitution by the European Commission

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-125
Author(s):  
Ágoston Korom
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Land Policy ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Direct Discrimination ◽  
Quality Of Living

The scope of action of EU Member States’ land policies lies at the intersection of positive and negative integration. Therefore, if a Member State restricts the ownership and use of agricultural land, it implies both the legitimate restriction of fundamental freedoms and that it achieves the targets listed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on improving the quality of living for farmers in keeping with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Despite this, it is worrisome that the EU’s control over negative integration does not allow Member States to create sustainable regulations. In contrast, the EU law leaves it entirely to the Member States to introduce restitution measures vis-à-vis the properties that were confiscated before their accession. The EU’s control prohibits direct discrimination against the citizens of other Member States. Under certain circumstances, according to the European Commission, the general principles of EU law and the provisions of the Charter can help individuals enforce restitution provisions. Bearing this in mind, we analysed the practice of the European Commission, its statements, and procedures against Member States, given that these are based on professional and/or political considerations. We examine the practice of the Commission and the CJEU vis-à-vis a Hungarian legislation on the so-called ‘zsebszerződések’. We also propose recommendations.

Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (March 2021-September 2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 379-391
Author(s):  
Pauline Melin ◽  
Susanne Sivonen
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Temporary Work ◽  
Equal Pay ◽  
Member States ◽  
Female Workers ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Public Sickness Insurance ◽  
Reserve System ◽  
Family Allowances

In O.D. and Others v INPS (C-350/20), the Court dealt with the refusal of the Italian authorities to grant childbirth and maternity allowances to third-country nationals falling within the scope of the Single Permit Directive. In CG (C-709/20), the Court considered the refusal of the UK authorities to grant social assistance to an economically inactive EU citizen resident under the UK scheme adopted in the context of Brexit. In AB v Olympiako (C-511/19), the Court found that the Greek legislation, adopted in the context of the economic crisis, placing public sector workers in a labour reserve system is not discriminatory on grounds of age. In WABE and MH Müller Handel (C-804/18 and C-341/19), the Court clarified what circumstances could justify differential treatment indirectly based on religion or belief. The Court confirmed the direct effect of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers enshrined in Article 157 TFEU for cases of work of equal value in Tesco Stores (C-624/19). In Team Power Europe (C-784/19), the Court specified under which criteria a temporary-work agency could be considered as pursuing ‘substantial activities’ in a Member State. In A (C-535/19), the Court held that a Member State cannot exclude an economically inactive EU citizen from its public sickness insurance system but does not have to grant access free of charge. In FORMAT (C-879/19), the Court confirmed that Article 14(2) of Regulation 1408/71 does not apply to a person who, under a single employment contract concluded with a single employer, works in several Member States for more than 12 months in each of those Member States. Finally, in PF (C-27/20), the Court dealt a national legislation which uses the penultimate year preceding the payment period as the reference year for the calculation of family allowances to be allocated.

scholarly journals Member State nationality under EU law – To be or not to be a Union Citizen?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2098607
Author(s):  
Lorin-Johannes Wagner
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The question of who ought to be regarded as Union citizen is a central but not an easily answered question. Drawing on an analysis of the ECJ’s case-law and the underlying constitutional set up of Union citizenship, this article argues that the notion of nationality in EU law is based on a jurisdictional conception that builds on the idea of a genuine link and a territorial link with the EU. Relying on this understanding the article assesses the peculiar cases of Germany, the UK and Denmark, establishing not only if and how Member States can reconfigure the meaning of their nationality under EU law but also highlighting that the notion of nationality as a peremptory marker for Union citizenship is defined within the constitutional realm of EU law. The understanding that Member States are free to define their nationality within EU law, hence, is a misplaced overstatement of sovereignty. Against this backdrop the last part of the article turns to the case of Latvian non-citizens, arguing that Latvian non-citizens, who are generally not regarded as Union citizens, have been Union citizens all along.

9. EU law

2020 ◽  
pp. 202-225
Author(s):  
Neil Parpworth
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Maastricht Treaty ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Treaty Of Amsterdam ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Direct Applicability

This chapter discusses the primary and secondary laws of the European Union (EU). Treaties are the primary law of the EU. In addition to the treaties that originally established the three European Communities, a number of other treaties have subsequently been made. These include the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty of Nice, and the Lisbon Treaty, all of which have made important amendments to the foundation treaties. Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) confers legislative power on the Union’s institutions to make secondary legislation in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. This secondary legislation may take different forms: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, and opinions. The chapter also discusses the concepts of direct applicability and direct effect, and the relationship between EU law and the English courts, and concludes by considering the likely enduring impact of EU law even after the UK has ceased to be a member state.

scholarly journals Organizacja administracji ochrony środowiska w Polsce i Unii Europejskiej

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-119
Author(s):  
Maciej Jabłoński
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Acquis Communautaire ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Eu

The organization of environmental protection in Poland and the European Union is a mutual connection of competencies and a correlation of systems and rights according to national and EU laws. The legal system of the EU is the result of decades of cooperation undertaken by the will of the Member States known as the acquis communautaire. EU law has primacy over national law, which in practice means that in the event of a conflict between the provisions of national law and EU law, the national law is deemed inapplicable and needs to be adjusted by the Member State.

scholarly journals Can an Ideal Court Model in Private Antitrust Enforcement Be Established?

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (18) ◽  
pp. 115-152
Author(s):  
Dominik Wolski
Keyword(s):  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Public And Private Enforcement ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Substantive Law

Any discussion of private antitrust enforcement usually focuses on substantive law and proceedings applicable to private antitrust cases. Those elements are important, however, the efficacy of both public and private enforcement relies upon rules of law (substantive and procedural) along with their application. The latter constitutes a substantial aspect affecting the institutions which make decisions in private antitrust enforcement cases, namely the relevant courts. The enforcement of competition law is inextricably intertwined with the economy and markets. As a result, antitrust cases are demanding for non-specialist judges, who usually do not have enough knowledge and experience in the field of competition. Even if the Damages Directive has already been implemented in all EU Member States, there is still room for discussion about developing an optimal court model for the adjudication of private antitrust enforcement cases. In the aforementioned discussion the issue of the binding effect of decisions made by the European Commission (EC) and National Competition Authorities (NCAs) in private enforcement cases, as well as the experience of judges stemming from the number of cases they have resolved, cannot be missed. Bearing this in mind, the main aim of this paper is to analyse the model of competent courts operating in private antitrust cases in twenty selected countries including the US, the UK and the vast majority of EU Member States. Taking into account that a theoretically pure concept of an ideal model of relevant court operations presumably does not exist, it is essential to try to figure out what the main characteristics of the courts might be that can lead to effective private antitrust enforcement.

scholarly journals EU Values Are Law, after All: Enforcing EU Values through Systemic Infringement Actions by the European Commission and the Member States of the European Union

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Lane Scheppele ◽  
Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov ◽  
Barbara Grabowska-Moroz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Although compliance with the founding values is presumed in its law, the Union is now confronted with persistent disregard of these values in two Member States. If it ceases to be a union of Rule-of-Law-abiding democracies, the European Union (EU) is unthinkable. Purely political mechanisms to safeguard the Rule of Law, such as those in Article 7 Treaty of European Union (TEU), do not work. Worse still, their existence has disguised the fact that the violations of the values of Article 2 TEU are also violations of EU law. The legal mechanisms tried thus far, however, do not work either. The fundamental jurisprudence on judicial independence and irremovability under Article 19(1) TEU is a good start, but it has been unable to change the situation on the ground. Despite ten years of EU attempts at reining in Rule of Law violations and even as backsliding Member States have lost cases at the Court of Justice, illiberal regimes inside the EU have become more consolidated: the EU has been losing through winning. More creative work is needed to find ways to enforce the values of Article 2 TEU more effectively. Taking this insight, we propose to turn the EU into a militant democracy, able to defend its basic principles, by using the traditional tools for the enforcement of EU law in a novel manner. We demonstrate how the familiar infringement actions—both under Article 258 and 259 TFEU—can be adapted as instruments for enforcing EU values by bundling a set of specific violations into a single general infringement action to show how a pattern of unlawful activity rises to the level of being a systemic violation. A systemic violation, because of its general and pervasive nature, in itself threatens basic values above and beyond violations of individual provisions of the acquis. Certified by the Court of Justice, a systemic violation of EU law should call for systemic compliance that would require the Member State to undo the effects of its attacks on the values of Article 2. The use of Article 260 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) to deduct fines from EU funds due to be received by the troubled Member State would provide additional incentives for systemic compliance. We illustrate this proposed militant democratic structure by explaining and critiquing what the Commission and Court together have done to reign in the governments of Hungary and Poland so far and then showing how they can do better.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document