EU Law

Project description

Question

Sylvia is a national of state X, a Member State of the European Union. She has

been living and working in state Y for the past year. State Y is also an EU Member

State.

Sylvia is married to Luis who is from Uruguay; they married two and a half years ago

when Sylvia was studying in Uruguay. When Sylvia got her job in country Y, the

couple decided that she would move their first, get settled in, and then Luis would

join her. Now that they have decided Luis should come to Europe, Sylvia suffers a

great shock when the National Immigration Office of state Y inform her that, under a

parliamentary law of January 1996, third-country nationals may only join their spouse

to live in country Y once the couple have been married for at least three years. The

legislation also expressly stipulates that its provisions shall be applied by the courts

unless and until they are repealed or amended by another law adopted by

Parliament.

One of the reasons Sylvia moved to State Y was to be closer to her elderly father,

Frank. Frank is also a national of state X. Frank lived and worked in country Y for

many years and, on retirement, decided to remain there. Frank is facing his own

problems. State Y legislation provides for a war-service pension for all those who

fought in World War II. As Frank was conscripted into State X’s army during the war,

he applies for the pension, but his application is rejected. The rejection letter

explains that national delegated legislation stipulates that the pension is only

available to nationals of country Y. The letter continues that all appeals to decisions

of the War Pensions Office should be made to the War Pensions Tribunal.

Frank files an appeal with the War Pensions Tribunal. The tribunal only convenes if

and when an appeal is lodged, and has not met for the past 9 months. It is

composed of senior civil servants who work in the War Pensions Office. The

applicant may attend the hearing in person to explain their case, but all decisions of

the tribunal are final. When Frank attends the hearing, he argues that delegated

legislation is in breach of EU law and that the tribunal should make a preliminary

reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union to have this point confirmed.

The members of the tribunal panel, however, do not share his views.

Frank’s problems do not end there. Frank has bought a mobility scooter from

ZipAlong, a company based in Member State Z. These particular mobility scooters

are not sold is State Y yet as they contain a brand new innovation designed by

ZipAlong. Due to the incredibly powerful motors in these new mobility scooters, State

Y’s Minister for Transport has passed an edict that only those who have completed a

state recognised course and obtained a qualifying licence may use the mobility

scooters in public areas. The Minister has announced that such measures have

been taken due to the increasing number of accidents taking place involving mobility

scooters, some of which have left pedestrians with serious, long-term injuries.

EU law

Order Description
Explain the principles of direct, indirect and incidental effect of European Union Directives and member state liability and critically consider why the Court of Justice felt it necessary to develop these principles.

Reference style OSCOLA

EU law

Order Description
Explain the principles of direct, indirect and incidental effect of European Union Directives and member state liability and critically consider why the Court of Justice felt it necessary to develop these principles.

Reference style OSCOLA