(d) the relationship between differing Community rights and obligations; (e) following and considering the arguments put forward; (f) a consideration of the impact of the case on Community law and the English legal system. This reading gives you an opportunity to see where you are in your understanding of these matters. Van Gend en Loos was decided early in the development of Community law and remains a leading case on the potential legal effect of an article in one of the founding treaties in the legal system of Member States. 5.6.2 The initial reading It is always a good idea to quickly read documents before a more considered reading, as long as you know why you are reading them. So, please now turn to Appendix 2 and read the case quickly (note that the numbers in brackets from (1)–(97) have been placed in the case to assist you with later work on it. Just ignore them for now). Once you have read the case quickly and have a general idea of what it is about, read it a second time, more slowly, and then answer the following questions: (1) In no more than 50 words, state the facts of the case (the fewer words the better). (2) What does Vand Gend en Loos want the court to allow? (3) What has to be decided before Vand Gend en Loos can get what they want? (4) What is the rationale behind the decision? (5) What are the legal issues in the case? (6) Do you find the language of the case difficult, or the case itself difficult to read? Give reasons for your answer. 5.6.3 The second reading: the tabulated micro-analysis of the case What you may have noticed in your reading of the case and subsequent answering of the questions is that the language of the law report is very different in style to that of an English law report. You are reading a translation of the working language of the EU, which is French not English, although all languages have equal status within the Community. What you will have immediately noticed is that the report reads as a series of descriptions and assertions. You will not find the reasoned, illustrative argumentative techniques that are the more familiar to the common law lawyer. Think, for example, of the case of Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 1 All ER 162 or George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds [1983] 2 All ER 732–44. To assist you to methodically engage with this case, it has been broken down into a table style format that takes you through each paragraph. The paragraphs have been numbered in the table according to the bracketed numbers that have been inserted into the text in Appendix 3 so that you can read the actual paragraph as well as its précis in the table. This should be useful as you can see a steady demonstration of summarising dense or technical text. In addition, a classification of the function of each paragraph is given under headings such as:
Keyword(s):
2021 ◽
Vol 7
(1)
◽
pp. 32
2021 ◽
Vol 8
(1)
◽
pp. 144-155
◽
2021 ◽
Vol 18
(19)
◽
pp. 10510
Keyword(s):
2019 ◽
Vol 53
(12)
◽
pp. 2481-2500
◽
Keyword(s):
2017 ◽
Vol 45
(4)
◽
pp. 1517-1539
◽
Keyword(s):
2021 ◽
Vol 14
(2)
◽
pp. 223-230
Keyword(s):