Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

    Hi.. Ermm I've a question regarding eu law (especially directives). The unconditional requirement in van gen en loos is it a condition on the particular individual or in the sense of the member state in question? In my question the directive gives the ability to an individual to invoke her right if only the individual aggrieved bring forward her claim before 14 days.. What I am stuck on is that the unconditionality requirement states that in order to be proved the state has not to implement further, buh the condition is toward an individual? Soo do I state it as a condition or not? Thanks for your help in advance

    guys, i need your help, i am having difficulties to structure an answer for my essay question :

    With reference to EU legislation and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, critically analyse the extent to which Member States can restrict or prevent the free movement of persons on grounds of public policy or public security

    Hi there, would you be able to help me with an exam question which i will be tested on jan, i dont know how to start or how to structure please can you help :

    this is the question

    Camilla, a Philippine national, is married to Pietro, a Spanish national. They married in 2004 and lived in Spain. They decided to leave Spain and moved to Portugal in 2006. Camilla found work but Pietro was unable to find work because of a long-term health condition. They divorced in 2013 when it became clear the marriage had irretrievably broken down as a result of the financial pressures they faced.

    Unfortunately Camilla lost her job mid-2014. The Portuguese immigration authorities have now informed Camilla that she must return to the Philippines.

    Camilla is a resourceful woman, and after losing her job, she established a business importing rice cookers from China through Spain into Portugal. She then experienced a series of problems:

    • First, she was charged by customs officials for a mandatory electrical safety inspection of the rice cookers;
    • Then, she was told that Portugal places an annual limit on rice cookers that can be imported;
    • Next, she learnt that under Portuguese law a licence is required for all rice cookers sold in Portugual because of concerns over food poisoning from reheated rice; and
    • Finally, she discovered that Portugal has regulations stipulating that rice cookers can only be sold through government sales outlets.

    Provide EU law advice to Camilla concerning both her personal and business problems.

    please can you help me im really stuck

    1) Articles 153 and 288 TFEU, when read together, confer a power on the European Union to issue Directives concerning the information and consultation of workers. Imagine that the European Union has adopted the Hazardous Warning and Consultation Directive under thisArticle. The Directive requires Member States to take measures before 31st March 2013 to ensure that employers provide employees and other workers who handle specified hazardous substances with “sufficient information to enable them or their representatives to decide if they wish to work with these substances at all”. Blue asbestos is one of the hazardous substances specified by the Directive. The United Kingdom Government and Parliament have not taken any steps to implement the Directive. Suleyman is a demolition worker employed by Holborn Site Services Ltd, a small private company with twenty employees. Jamie is a maintenance engineer employed by South Surrey Gas CompanyPlc, a large privatized regional supplier of gas. In July 2015, both developedrespiratory troubles after having handled blue asbestos in the course of theirwork during that year. Their respective employers had not supplied anyinformation concerning the hazards of this substance or the likelihood of itsbeing found at work.

    Advise Suleyman and Jamie as to whether or not they are entitled under EU law to rely on the Directive in an English court.

    Can anyone help me structure the answer.

    i have got a problem question for EU. Just wanted to make sure that the way im doing it is right.
    "Choki is a major German producer of chocolate products. It exports its products across the EU, and typically supplies 3,000 tonnes of chocolate products a year to French supermarkets. It markets its products throughout the EU using a successful TV advert starring Kirsten Dunst. Since August of 2015, all of its exports of chocolate products to France have been refused entry at the French border. The reason given by the French border authorities is that Choki uses Carigan (fictitious), an additive that may be damaging to human health. The scientific evidence relating to Carigan is inconclusive, but a documentary aired on the effects of Carigan on French TV gave rise to a movement against Carigan that eventually lead to a law being passed in France banning the sale of all products containing Carigan.
    France has additionally banned the advertising of all sweets, including chocolate, on French TV in an attempt to curb raising rates of obesity.
    Advise Choki as to its rights in relation to the selling and advertising of its products in France."

    basically what i wanted to confirms is that the act of French border to refuse entry to all Choki products, is it a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect? and why?

    please help

    Hey everyone
    Id appreciate with some pointers for this questions,its an practice question and I need all the help i can get for the real thing
    thank youuu

    . In 2010 the Council and Parliament of the European Union (EU) passed a directive to regulate the labelling of fruit and vegetables. This Directive requires all Member States to put into national law the following obligation:A tomato may be labelled and sold as a ‘cherry’ tomato as long as its diameter does not exceed five centimetres.The deadline for transposition of the directive was 1 January 2016.The UK has not transposed this directive as the UK Government’s view is that there is already existing and working UK law regulating the labelling of food which makes clear to the British public what is a cherry tomato. Specifically there is a 2009 Act of Parliament which states that for the purposes of UK law a tomato may be sold as a ‘cherry’ tomato as long as the diameter of the tomato is not more than three centimetres. This 2009 Act makes it a criminal offence in the United Kingdom, with the sanction of a fine, to sell any tomato, as a ‘cherry’ tomato with a diameter more than three centimetres.Abby grows and sells tomatoes in a market in Ludington Town. Since the beginning of the year Abby has been selling a variety of tomato, which she labels and sells as ‘cherry’ tomato. This variety has a diameter of four centimetres. The local Trading Standards Officer has warned her not to label this variety as ‘cherry’ tomatoes as she is breaking the law. She continues to sell this variety of tomato as ‘cherry’ tomatoes.Abby is now to be prosecuted in her local magistrate’s court by Ludington Town Council. In court, the Council will argue that while it accepts that the meaning of the 2010 EU Directive is clear, precise and unconditional and not dependent upon further action, Abby has nonetheless broken the 2009 Act and should be fined. Abby in her defence will argue she is acting legally under the 2010 Directive and that it protects her.

    Explain the law relevant to this scenario and advise Abby whether at law she has a defence to the prosecution.Your advice must cover explanations of the following areas:
    a) The UK Act(s) and relevant sections concerned with the application of EU law in the UK;
    b) The characteristics of EU directives;
    c) The EU law which is relevant to showing whether or not a person can rely upon a directive in a national court;
    d) The EU law which is relevant to resolving clashes between UK and EU law;
    e) The UK law which is relevant to resolving clashes between UK and EU law;
    f) With reference to the law identified in the answers above, you should explain with reasons, the legal defence Abby could put forward to the court and your view on

    Would you please be able to show us something like this for free movement of services & establishment? <3

    Thank you so much

    Would you please be able to show us something like this for free movement of goods? <3

    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 [/QUOTE]

    Hiii! Can anyone please please help me out with the second and third situations! Im confused

    For several decades, Rejuvenation Ltd has been successfully selling mineral water sourced in the hills of England’s ever green land. Rejuvenation Ltd now intends to widen their market to the European continent but have encountered the following difficulties:
    In Poland, Rejuvenation Ltd is not allowed to sell its products at all because it fails to satisfy the Polish definition of ‘mineral water’ as requiring a precise balance of minerals, salts and sulfur compounds. When Rejuvenation Ltd asks for clarification, the Polish authorities signal that, as a solution, they would accept that the product be renamed and sold as ‘Bottled Tap Water’ instead. The Polish authorities indicate that the name ‘Mineral Water’ cannot be used as it would otherwise mislead consumers.
    In Spain, Rejuvenation Ltd is deeply affected by research results recently published by El Havilland Universidad. This study indicates that (fictitious) BVE, which is a key component found in many plastics, constitutes a dangerous health hazard for humans. Rejuvenation water is sold in bottles made from plastic containing the BVE ingredient. A month after the results are published, the Spanish government announces that they will ban all imports of mineral water stored in plastic bottles because of the possible health effect on humans. However Rejuvenation Ltd hears that the expanding Spanish water industry has been particularly organised and effective in their lobbying of the Spanish Government.
    Finally, in Sweden, there has been a very successful campaign promoting tap water as being ‘the only’ environmentally ethical water. As a result, the Swedish Parliament introduces legislation to limit the sale of mineral to pharmaceutical outlets.*Rejuvenation’s mineral water can thus only be sold in pharmaceutical outlets.
    Advise Rejuvenation Ltd as to the application of EU law on the free movement of goods to the above situations.

    I have a problem question due to be completed for next week. I am hoping someone on here can give me a little help.

    The question concerns a fictitious EU directive, which requires all MS to have a maximum working week of 30 hours. John and Jenny have been working in excess of this. The transposition period ended 11 months ago. Jenny works for a local city council, and John works for a private sports shop. A lawyer has a advised them that they have 'a very promising case'.

    a) outline the procedural options available to John and Jenn to get access to the ECJ (pre-brexit)

    b)Analyse whether the lawyer is right in her assessment that Jenny and John have ‘a very promising case’ and discuss what the effects of a favourable judgement would be in a pre-Brexit Britain

    There is also a final question which assumes that the ECJ rules in favour of Jenny and/or John. It concerns what possile effects the ECJ ruling may retain post-Brexit.

    I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE SOME HELP ON THE PART A. I know it seems simple, but it is a stumbling block i really need to get over pronto. From that point I think i should be able to form a decent asnwer for parts B and C. Please someone help a brutha out
Have you ever experienced racism/sexism at uni?

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