Eu Legal History

In addition to the European Economic Community itself, the European continent has undergone a profound transition towards democracy. The dictators of Greece and Portugal were deposed in 1974, and the Spanish dictator died in 1975, allowing them to join in 1981 and 1986. In 1979, the European Parliament held its first direct elections, reflecting a growing consensus that the EEC should be less a union of Member States than a union of peoples. The Single European Act of 1986 increased the number of Treaty issues on which qualified majority voting (rather than consensus) would be used to legislate to accelerate trade integration. The 1985 Schengen Agreement (which was not originally signed by Italy, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark or Greece) allowed the movement of people without border controls. Meanwhile, in 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev of the Soviet Union announced a policy of “transparency” and “restructuring” (glasnost and perestroika). This revealed the depth of corruption and waste. In April 1989, the Polish People`s Republic legalized the organization Solidarnosc, which won 99% of the available parliamentary seats in the June elections. These elections, in which anti-communist candidates won a remarkable victory, ushered in a series of peaceful anti-communist revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe, culminating in the fall of communism.

In November 1989, protesters in Berlin began the fall of the Berlin Wall, which became a symbol of the fall of the Iron Curtain, with most Eastern European countries declaring independence and holding democratic elections until 1991. Scholars interested in the history of continental European legal systems may find visits to the Bodleian History Reading Rooms, the Sackler and Taylorian libraries highly productive. Unlike the Member States, the relationship between EU law and international law is discussed, in particular with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations. All EU Member States are parties to both organisations through international treaties. Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union obliges the EU to accede to the ECHR, but “would not affect the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties”. This was deemed necessary before the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 to ensure that the EU adequately protects human rights, which are overseen by the external European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In Opinion No. However, in point 2/13 (in Luxembourg), the Court of Justice (in Luxembourg) gave five main reasons why it considered that the accession agreement in its present form was incompatible with the Treaties. [109] The explanatory memorandum was perceived by a majority of commentators as a thinly veiled attempt by the Court to cling to its own power[110], but it led the Commission to reformulate a new accession agreement. In accordance with Articles 3(5), 21, 34 and 42 TEU, the EU must also respect the principles of the UN Charter.

Following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden. Among them was a Saudi national, Mr. Kadi. Sweden froze its assets under an EU regulation that promulgated the UN Security Council resolution. In the Kadi v Commission case, Mr Kadi argued that there was no evidence that he was linked to terrorism and that he had not received a fair trial: a fundamental human right. [111] Attorney General Maduro`s opinion reminded Aharon Barak of Israel`s Supreme Court that “it is when guns roar that we particularly need laws.” The Court ruled that even members of the United Nations cannot violate “the principles which form part of the legal order of the Community itself”. [112] Indeed, the EU has developed a rule that other courts may prevail within the limits of certain jus cogens principles. The content of these fundamental principles remains open to permanent judicial dialogue between the highest courts in Europe. Many of the most important rights were codified in 2000 in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Although the UK has chosen not to apply the Charter directly, this has little practical relevance, as the Charter merely reflects pre-existing principles and the Court of Justice uses the Charter to interpret all EU law. For example, in Test-Achats ASBL v Council of Ministers, the Court held that Article 5(2) of the 2004 Equal Treatment of Goods and Services Directive, which provides for an exception to equal treatment so that men and women can benefit from different car insurance tariffs, is unlawful. [172] It violated the principle of equality set out in sections 21 and 23 of the CFREU 2000 and was to be considered ineffective after a transitional period.

By contrast, in Deutsches Weintor eG v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, wine producers argued that an instruction from the national food regulatory authority (acting in accordance with EU law[173]) is no longer marketed as `easily digestible` (digestible) violates their right to freedom of occupation and freedom to conduct a business under Articles 15 and 16 of the CFREU 2000. [174] The Court held that, in fact, the right of consumers to health under section 35 should also be taken into account and given greater weight, particularly in light of the health effects of alcohol. However, some Charter rights are not clear enough to be considered directly binding. In AMS v. Union locale des syndicats CGT, a French trade union, argued that the French Labour Code could not exclude casual workers from taking into account the right to set up a works council, which an employer must inform and consult. [175] This was contrary to the Employee Information and Consultation Directive and section 27 of the CFREU. The Court recognised that the French Labour Code was incompatible with the Directive, but held that Article 27 was too general to create direct rights. From that point of view, legislation was needed to make abstract human rights principles concrete and legally enforceable. This guide is intended for students and researchers studying the legal history of the civil law tradition at Oxford University, although students and researchers from all fields may find it useful.

The `freedom to provide services` within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU applies to providers of services `for consideration`, in particular to commercial or professional activities. [266] For example, in Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid, a Dutch lawyer moved to Belgium while advising a client in a social security case and was told that he could not continue because, under Dutch law, only persons established in the Netherlands could provide legal advice. [267] The Court held that the freedom to provide services was applicable, had direct effect and that the rule was unlikely to be justified: an address in the Member State would suffice to pursue the legitimate objective of the sound administration of justice. [268] The Court held that secondary education does not fall within the scope of section 56 because it is normally publicly funded,[269] but higher education is not. [270] Health care is generally considered a service.

Call Now ButtonCall Now