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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you for your response,

    When you say 'Does Cassis go too far' - this is the bit I am finding difficult to grasp

    Any other info you maybe able to provide
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apples123)
    Thank you for your response,

    When you say 'Does Cassis go too far' - this is the bit I am finding difficult to grasp

    Any other info you maybe able to provide
    IIRC, Cassis is the principle of mutual recognition, especially for labelling cases. Consider cases such as Clinique and systems where product law protects the weakest consumer, and consider Enchelmaer's argument that what is being struck down in some cases is actually valid aspects of Member State culture and language.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i really need to finish my law I.A before the end of this month but i dont know where to start can someone help me plz
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by icrazykadz)
    i really need to finish my law I.A before the end of this month but i dont know where to start can someone help me plz
    which topic?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In the situation of conflict between national and EU law, which law is to prevail? ... If you're struggling with writing your law essay or problem question,
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scott321)
    In the situation of conflict between national and EU law, which law is to prevail? ... If you're struggling with writing your law essay or problem question,
    EU law. Basic application of Simmenthal or Costa v ENEl.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gethsemane342)
    Just think about whether Cassis de Dijon and Keck are really that radical? If you go back to Dassonville, are they extensions of this case or merely interpretations (in which case, it's radical only in how we think)? Should it be caselaw or legislation creating harmonisation, especially given the wider approach the ECJ is taking these days to what is unlawful. Consider what Article 34 is meant to acheive. Does Keck, in particular, block this? Or is it justified? Does Cassis go too far, perhaps, especially with regard to Trailers.
    Do either of you have a good structure for this essay? I understand the basic concepts but writing an essay on it seems a bit harder.

    Much appreciated for anyone that helps!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by olivia_perry)
    Do either of you have a good structure for this essay? I understand the basic concepts but writing an essay on it seems a bit harder.

    Much appreciated for anyone that helps!
    im the same im in so much trouble for this
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katharos703)
    you always need to go through the same steps:

    1) Scope
    a. Does Union law applies, and what part of Union law?
    i. Union citizen or TCN
    ii. Whole internal situation
    iii. What kind of situation? (vertical or horizontal)
    iv. Case-law?
    2) Breach
    a. Problem in the case?
    i. Direct discrimination
    ii. Indirect discrimination
    iii. Hinder of free movement
    b. What article is breached?
    3) Justification
    a. Defense of the one (MS) who is breaching
    !! What is said about the breach is important for justification as well, because e.g. direct discrimination is harder to find a justification than for indirect discrimination, …
    4) Proportionality + human rights
    a. Problem v. defense
    i. Suitability (Is the measure suitable to attain the aim?)
    ii. Necessity (Is the rule necessary? This means that if there is a less restrictive measure or possibility, the rule they use is not.)

    If you follow this schema you must be able to solve the cases
    Hope it will help

    I genuinely want to marry you, you are amazing!!!

    Rep will be given just for being a fountain of knowledge...

    Also, could I be really cheeky and ask a quick question on actions for annulment; I think I've got it right but want to check as I keep questioning myself! I've asked on another thread as well, but I thought I'd ask here

    For AFA you can bring an action under 3 headings; the first is act addressed to that person - I believe this to be specific companies (i.e. HSBC and Beko), and is usually within competition law... My question is, would a regulation governing the actions of various, un-specified companies also come under this (i.e. all manufacturer's of rubber ducks), or would it come under the second heading of 'act addressed to another and showing direct and individual concern'. I believe it would come under the second heading, but I keep questioning myself!!!

    Loads of wednesday morning, EU loving happiness being spread
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophie_snail)
    I genuinely want to marry you, you are amazing!!!

    Rep will be given just for being a fountain of knowledge...

    Also, could I be really cheeky and ask a quick question on actions for annulment; I think I've got it right but want to check as I keep questioning myself! I've asked on another thread as well, but I thought I'd ask here

    For AFA you can bring an action under 3 headings; the first is act addressed to that person - I believe this to be specific companies (i.e. HSBC and Beko), and is usually within competition law... My question is, would a regulation governing the actions of various, un-specified companies also come under this (i.e. all manufacturer's of rubber ducks), or would it come under the second heading of 'act addressed to another and showing direct and individual concern'. I believe it would come under the second heading, but I keep questioning myself!!!

    Loads of wednesday morning, EU loving happiness being spread
    The Act can be adressed to any legal OR natural person. Don't restrict your reading.

    Competition is special because few cases arise under A263 so you've pretty much got auto-standing. Competition books don't really question this at all. The issue with A263 is more to do with things like farming quotas, which can change on a weekly basis.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gethsemane342)
    The Act can be adressed to any legal OR natural person. Don't restrict your reading.

    Competition is special because few cases arise under A263 so you've pretty much got auto-standing. Competition books don't really question this at all. The issue with A263 is more to do with things like farming quotas, which can change on a weekly basis.

    Hey

    Yeah, but there's 3 headings; and the first one is 'act addressed to that person'... my notes say that it is to a company, but I don't know whether that company has to be specifically mentioned... And my research is confusing me rather than enlightening me
    Sorry to be a pain!!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophie_snail)
    Hey

    Yeah, but there's 3 headings; and the first one is 'act addressed to that person'... my notes say that it is to a company, but I don't know whether that company has to be specifically mentioned... And my research is confusing me rather than enlightening me
    Sorry to be a pain!!


    When it is addressed to them, yes, you have to be mentioned by name (see pg 372, Hartley). This would almost certainly be to a company but don't make the mistake of restricting "person" to company as it has the same meaning through the rest
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gethsemane342)
    When it is addressed to them, yes, you have to be mentioned by name (see pg 372, Hartley). This would almost certainly be to a company but don't make the mistake of restricting "person" to company as it has the same meaning through the rest
    Thank you so much
    I hate this coursework, as it's making me question all of my knowledge... I don't have Hartley, but perhaps I should invest in it as it seems to make more sense than bloody Fairhurst!

    If it'll let me rep you again I will dooooo
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophie_snail)
    I genuinely want to marry you, you are amazing!!!

    Rep will be given just for being a fountain of knowledge...

    Also, could I be really cheeky and ask a quick question on actions for annulment; I think I've got it right but want to check as I keep questioning myself! I've asked on another thread as well, but I thought I'd ask here

    For AFA you can bring an action under 3 headings; the first is act addressed to that person - I believe this to be specific companies (i.e. HSBC and Beko), and is usually within competition law... My question is, would a regulation governing the actions of various, un-specified companies also come under this (i.e. all manufacturer's of rubber ducks), or would it come under the second heading of 'act addressed to another and showing direct and individual concern'. I believe it would come under the second heading, but I keep questioning myself!!!

    Loads of wednesday morning, EU loving happiness being spread
    - “to that person” -> has to be named

    - “direct and individual concern” -> they need to satisfy the conditions:
    * they need to have concern
    * it has to go about a legally binding action
    * they have to be directly affected (decrease of their patrimony)
    * they have to be individually affected (you’ll have to apply the Plauman-test, it’s very restrictive, they should be identifiable, for instance when multiple companies are named by the act. This doesn’t fall under the heading “to that person” because it’s addressed to more than one) Because Plaumann is strict, Lisbon added a third category

    - “direct concern and does not entail implementing measures” -> helpful for act against multiple unnamed persons. Although this is probably only working in cases like the one of Yégo Quéré

    (Original post by sophie_snail)
    Thank you so much
    I hate this coursework, as it's making me question all of my knowledge... I don't have Hartley, but perhaps I should invest in it as it seems to make more sense than bloody Fairhurst!

    If it'll let me rep you again I will dooooo
    I don't like fairhurst too
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Fairhurst is horrible (the nice lemon book cover was misleading), still not as bad as my Tort book.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophie_snail)
    Thank you so much
    I hate this coursework, as it's making me question all of my knowledge... I don't have Hartley, but perhaps I should invest in it as it seems to make more sense than bloody Fairhurst!

    If it'll let me rep you again I will dooooo
    I'm told Hartley actually isn't comprehensive enough. They tested it on us last year and then switched to Craig and De Burca this year. Still, I found it pretty understandable at the least
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katharos703)
    - “to that person” -> has to be named

    - “direct and individual concern” -> they need to satisfy the conditions:
    * they need to have concern
    * it has to go about a legally binding action
    * they have to be directly affected (decrease of their patrimony)
    * they have to be individually affected (you’ll have to apply the Plauman-test, it’s very restrictive, they should be identifiable, for instance when multiple companies are named by the act. This doesn’t fall under the heading “to that person” because it’s addressed to more than one) Because Plaumann is strict, Lisbon added a third category

    - “direct concern and does not entail implementing measures” -> helpful for act against multiple unnamed persons. Although this is probably only working in cases like the one of Yégo Quéré



    I don't like fairhurst too
    Thank you so much for your help. This is what happens when I over think things I can't wait for this EU coursework to be done with!!


    (Original post by dingdingdong)
    Fairhurst is horrible (the nice lemon book cover was misleading), still not as bad as my Tort book.
    Hahahahaha!!! Damn that deceiving lemon!



    (Original post by gethsemane342)
    I'm told Hartley actually isn't comprehensive enough. They tested it on us last year and then switched to Craig and De Burca this year. Still, I found it pretty understandable at the least
    I do love Craig and De Burca, but can't afford it and then copies keep disappearing from the library!


    Rep for all who I love dearly!!!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophie_snail)
    I do love Craig and De Burca, but can't afford it and then copies keep disappearing from the library!


    Rep for all who I love dearly!!!
    I've never opened a copy of Craig and De Burca, and EU was my second best paper (Admittedly, that's because I just did free movement in the exam )
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gethsemane342)
    I've never opened a copy of Craig and De Burca, and EU was my second best paper (Admittedly, that's because I just did free movement in the exam )
    Free movement genius eh?
    I love free movement of goods, hate free movement of people :P (although I'm sure it's useful :P)
    That's in my coursework as well... Fancy explaining the Keck requirement with regards to product requirements 'same as in fact, as in law'... I don't know if I fell asleep for a couple of minutes during my lecture, but I can't seem to understand what one earth their talking about.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophie_snail)
    Free movement genius eh?
    I love free movement of goods, hate free movement of people :P (although I'm sure it's useful :P)
    That's in my coursework as well... Fancy explaining the Keck requirement with regards to product requirements 'same as in fact, as in law'... I don't know if I fell asleep for a couple of minutes during my lecture, but I can't seem to understand what one earth their talking about.
    Do you mean the 2nd limb of tha Para 16 provisio? If so, essentially, you need to see if it's equal legally and factually. So, for example, a rule which says "Shops can only sell pens between the hours of 8am and 9pm" is the same in law. It's also the same in fact because, regardless of where the pens came from, they'll only be sold between those hours so there's no disparate impact on the foreign provider.

    Now let's take adverts. The law says "Cleaning products may not be advertised on TV". In law, this is equal. In fact, because advertising is a huge way to impact the market, people will only know their home products so foreign providers have a tougher time getting into the market. This means it's not equal in fact, because they can't sell their goods as well as a home provider, and fails the 2nd limb of Keck.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • 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

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