Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guys, i got a cw for European Law and i'm having difficulty understanding the main issues at work here. I'd appreciate any help. thanks
    the question is as follows

    Consider the following hypothetical situation:
    Museum visits in the national museum of Italy in Rome, as well as in many regional museums in other Italian towns, have fallen away disastrously since 2004.
    Fictitious Directive 2005/100 provides in its preamble that European culture in all its forms should be promoted and thus be accessible to all EU citizens.
    The implementation date was 1 January 2008. Article 3 of the Directive provides that access to museums and exhibitions should be free or reasonably priced to all European citizens.

    In April 2008 the Italian authorities decide drastic measures are necessary to prevent closure of some of the museums. The government issues a decree that all museums in the country should take the following measures:

    ‘they should charge entry fees which are high enough to make some impact on their finances, but exceptions should be made for Italians under the age of 25 or over the age of 65, and for Italian unemployed, on production of documentary evidence of age or unemployment’.

    (a) Nicola, a British teacher, takes a class of twenty 15-year-old schoolchildren from London on a trip to Italy. She wants to travel around with them, to show them as much of the country’s culture as possible. Upon arriving at the various museums, she finds that her budget simply does not stretch far enough to pay the very high entry fee to the national museum of Rome, and that she has barely enough to pay the more modest entry fees to the other museums. She is sympathetic to the arguments presented to her: the money is urgently needed; she can see the dilapidated state of some museums and the small numbers of visitors. Nevertheless, she pleads with the museum curators at least to make some concessions. Some agree and let her class in for a nominal fee. The national museum makes a small 5% reduction by way of a goodwill gesture.
    (b) Nicola and the schoolchildren also visit a privately owned arts and crafts museum which has organised a special exhibition of local arts and crafts. They do not charge anyone under 25, in direct defiance of government policy instructions, and ask everyone above that age to pay a very modest entry fee. The exhibition is a great success. Mr Rossi, the museum director, is severely reprimanded by the central government for his actions. He is told to close down the exhibition, and not to expect any state subsidies for the museum from now on.

    Advise both Nicola and Mr Rossi as to means of redress open to them under European Union law
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Fairly straightforward question on Directives written in quite a confusing way

    See http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1484664

    --> Is the Directive capable of direct effect?
    Directive is sufficiently clear and precise? Debatable...
    Unconditional? Yes
    Time passed for implementation? Yes

    --> (a)
    If the Directive has been breached (has it? Is a 5% reduction on a high entry fee a "reasonable price" considering that many museums are dilapidated) its a horizontal situation, so see if there are any ways around the no horizontal d.e. rule (have done a detailed post on this in the past, too long to type out and explain the exceptions now, try doing a search).
    Consider alternative Francovich damages claim

    --> (b)
    If the reprimand involves a penalty/punishment, and in relation to any attempted closing of the museum this is a vertical situation so its easy for Mr Rossi to use the Directive as a defence and/or sue under the Directive (this involves separate and additional issues but u probably havent studied them yet)
    Can he force the state to pay subsidies as before? Am unsure, there will be some case law on this point
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    thanks alot for all the help man.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Fairly straightforward question on Directives written in quite a confusing way

    See http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1484664

    --> Is the Directive capable of direct effect?
    Directive is sufficiently clear and precise? Debatable...
    Unconditional? Yes
    Time passed for implementation? Yes

    --> (a)
    If the Directive has been breached (has it? Is a 5% reduction on a high entry fee a "reasonable price" considering that many museums are dilapidated) its a horizontal situation, so see if there are any ways around the no horizontal d.e. rule (have done a detailed post on this in the past, too long to type out and explain the exceptions now, try doing a search).
    Consider alternative Francovich damages claim

    --> (b)
    If the reprimand involves a penalty/punishment, and in relation to any attempted closing of the museum this is a vertical situation so its easy for Mr Rossi to use the Directive as a defence and/or sue under the Directive (this involves separate and additional issues but u probably havent studied them yet)
    Can he force the state to pay subsidies as before? Am unsure, there will be some case law on this point
    For question B, Do you think it is necessary to focus on 'Indirect effect' in relation to Mr Rossi, in the sense that the purpose is to hold member states responsible for private individuals acting in a way that their relation with other individuals they breach community law. (Here mentioning the case of Von Colson,1984) where the court held that a member state must interpret domestic legislation to be consistent with the demands of a directive, and if it fails to do so it will be liable for any resulting infraction by an individual.

    I also looked at the Factotame case and - would state liability be an appropriate remedy for Mr Ross,and the case of Francovich??

    Would it be necessary to look at 'incidental horizontal effect'which suggests that private parties can rely on community directives in order to defend themselves against actions brought by other parties.. (such as the french government) Which has been accepted in three cases (CIA Secutiy International/Ruiz Bernaldez/Parfitiz). The courts have permitted it to be used as a shield defence rather than a sword.


    Any guidance will be greatly appreciated. Thank You for your input so far!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.