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.

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.

The European Union and dentistry

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blánaid Daly ◽  
Paul Batchelor ◽  
Elizabeth Treasure ◽  
Richard Watt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
European Union Country ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
High Level

As the UK is part of the European Union it is important to understand the effect this has on the practice of dentistry. This chapter briefly reviews the European Union legislation as it relates to dentistry, and describes common features found in European states with regard to the practice of dentistry. The European Union consists of 28 member states with over 520 million citizens. Article 129 of the Treaty of Rome requires the European Union: . . . ● to contribute towards ensuring a high level of human health protection; . . . . . . ● to direct action towards the prevention of diseases, particularly of the major health scourges, including drug dependence, by promoting research into their causes and transmission, as well as health information and education. . . . One area in which the European Union works is by funding collaborative research between member states, for which major research schemes are available. It is not yet clear what the European Union’s role will be in public health, although there are developments in this area. In 1969, the principle of freedom of movement was established and aimed to ‘abolish any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment’. This means that every worker who is a citizen of a member state has the right to: . . . ● accept offers of employment in any European Union country; . . . . . . ● move freely within the European Union for the purposes of employment; . . . . . . ● be employed in a country in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that country; . . . . . . ● remain in the country after the employment ceases. . . . The freedom of movement has applied to dentists since 1980, if their education has met the requirements of the Dental Directives. The European Union Dental Directives (78/686 and 687 EEC) mean that any national of a member state who holds one of the recognized qualifications of dentistry may practice dentistry in any other member state.

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.

scholarly journals Durable Relationship and Family Members “by Analogy” in the European Union

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Tanel Feldman ◽  
Marco Mazzeschi
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Family Members ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Registered Partnership ◽  
The Family ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Union Citizen ◽  
The Eu

Rights of residence derived from a durable relationship with an EU citizen, are left to a relatively wide discretion of the Member States. Pursuant to Article 2.2 (b) Directive 2004/38/EC (“Directive”), “the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State” qualifies as family member. Provided that they have a durable relationship (duly attested) with an EU citizen, pursuant to Article 3.2(b), unregistered partners are as well beneficiaries of the Directive. The durable relationship was expressly excluded from the scope of Article 2(2)(b): “Unlike the amended proposal, it does not cover de facto durable relationships” (EU Commission, Document 52003SC1293). Article 3 (2)(a) covers “other family members” (no restrictions as to the degree of relatedness) if material support is provided by the EU citizen or by his partner or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen. Pursuant to Article 3.2, “other family members” and unregistered partners can attest a durable relationship, must be facilitated entry and residence, in accordance to the host Member State’s national legislation. In the light of Preamble 6 Directive, the situation of the persons who are not included in the definition of family members, must be considered “in order to maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense”. The questions discussed in this paper are the following: (i) are Member States genuinely considering the concept of durable relationship in view of maintaining the unity of the family in a broader sense? and (ii) how to overcome legal uncertainty and which criteria, both at EU and at international level, can be taken into account in order to assess whether a durable relationship is genuine and should be granted the rights set forth by the Directive?

Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit:

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radovan Malachta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk

The paper follows up on the arguments introduced in the author’s article Mutual Trust as a Way to an Unconditional Automatic Recognition of Foreign Judgments. This paper, titled Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit: Overview discusses, whether there has been a loss of mutual trust between the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit. The UK, similarly to EU Member States, has been entrusted with the area of recognition and enforcement of judgements thus far. Should the Member States decrease the level of mutual trust in relation to the UK only because the UK ceased to be part of the EU after 47 years? Practically overnight, more precisely, the day after the transitional period, should the Member States trust the UK less in the light of legislative changes? The article also outlines general possibilities that the UK has regarding which international convention it may accede to. Instead of going into depth, the article presents a basic overview. However, this does not prevent the article to answer, in addition to the questions asked above, how a choice of access to an international convention could affect the level of mutual trust between the UK and EU Member States.

The EU during Brexit

2020 ◽  
pp. 9-34
Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Military Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Decision To Leave ◽  
Policy Initiatives ◽  
Eu Membership ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter analyses the European Union during Brexit, explaining how the EU institutions and Member States reacted to the UK’s decision to leave the EU. It outlines how they went about this in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. The EU institutions and Member States managed to adopt a very united stance vis-à-vis a withdrawing state, establishing effective institutional mechanisms and succeeding in imposing their strategic preferences in the negotiations with the UK. Nevertheless, the EU was also absorbed during Brexit by internal preparations to face both the scenario of a ‘hard Brexit’—the UK leaving the EU with no deal—and of a ‘no Brexit’—with the UK subsequently delaying exit and extending its EU membership. Finally, during Brexit the EU increasingly started working as a union of 27 Member States—the EU27—which in this format opened a debate on the future of Europe and developed new policy initiatives, especially in the field of defence and military cooperation.

The European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 299-339
Author(s):  
Robert P. Inman ◽  
Daniel L. Rubinfeld
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Democratic Deficit ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Agricultural Policies ◽  
Member States ◽  
Monetary Policies ◽  
Financial Regulations ◽  
Eu Policies ◽  
European Policies ◽  
Collective Production

This chapter traces the evolution of EU institutions from a simple six-nation pact to jointly manage the collective production of coal and steel to a 2020 union of twenty-eight members setting common agricultural policies, economic development investments, competition and trade policies, and for nineteen member states, monetary policies and financial regulations. As an economic union regulating market policies, there is little doubt that the union has been a success, particularly for the residents of the originally less economically developed member states. As a monetary union and as a political union, perhaps less so. Politically, the union suffers from a “democratic deficit,” with citizens lacking a direct means to debate and collectively decide the direction of EU policies, and a “rights deficit,” with the union lacking a means to discipline member states that threaten the union's foundational commitment to individual rights and the rule of law. The EU is at a crossroads. One path involves modest reforms within the structure of current institutions. The other would entail a full commitment to Democratic Federalism. To be successful, such a commitment must begin with a union polity willing to view EU policies as European policies, not member state policies for the benefit of each member state alone.

7. Treaty enforcement actions against member states

2020 ◽  
pp. 177-193
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Interim Measures

This chapter examines the enforcement of legal actions against member states in violation of the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This is termed the procedural law. It explains what constitutes a breach of TFEU provisions and the process of identifying and reporting violations. It provides examples of the procedures involved in breaches of Articles 258, 260, 259, and 278–279 of the TFEU. This chapter also considers the actions brought by one member state against another, suspensory orders, and interim measures, and describes alternative actions that can help secure compliance by member states.

Twenty Years of CJEU Jurisprudence on Citizenship

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 821-834
Author(s):  
Prof. Dr. Gerard-René de Groot ◽  
Ngo Chun Luk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Symbiotic Relationship ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constant Friction ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Relationship

The history of the European Union has been fraught with constant friction between the sovereignty of the Member States and the supranational powers of the Union, with the Union gaining terrain in fields of law traditionally belonging to the Member States. Despite this tension, certain legal fields are steadfastly asserted as belonging to the Member States. Notably, Member States regulate the grounds of the acquisition and loss of nationality. The Treaty of Lisbon highlights that the nationality of Member States is scarcely governed by European Union law, if at all. The sole provision governing the relationship between Member State nationality and Union law, i.e., Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) stresses the primacy of Member State nationality.Reality, however, is often not as simple as such a cursory reading implies. European Union citizenship, once a mere complementary facet of the national citizenships, has transformed into an institution in its own right, forming a symbiotic relationship between the Member State nationality and the European Union.

scholarly journals European but not European enough: An explanation for Brexit

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah Carl ◽  
James Dennison ◽  
Geoffrey Evans
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Member State ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Weak Sense ◽  
European Identity ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Measures Of Inequality ◽  
The Eu

To date, most accounts of the UK’s vote to leave the EU have focussed on explaining variation across individuals and constituencies within the UK. In this article, we attempt to answer a different question, namely ‘Why was it the UK that voted to leave, rather than any other member state?’. We show that the UK has long been one of the most Eurosceptic countries in the EU, which we argue can be partly explained by Britons’ comparatively weak sense of European identity. We also show that existing explanations of the UK’s vote to leave cannot account for Britons’ long-standing Euroscepticism: the UK scores lower than many other member states on measures of inequality/austerity, the ‘losers of globalisation’ and authoritarian values, and some of these measures are not even correlated with Euroscepticism across member states. In addition, we show that the positive association between national identity and Euroscepticism is stronger in the UK than in most other EU countries. Overall, we conclude that Britons’ weak sense of European identity was a key contributor to the Brexit vote.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document