The scope of application of the general principles of Union law: An ever expanding Union?

Common Market Law Review

Volumn 47, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1589-1596

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650259915     PISSN: 01650750     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (66)

1. E.g. Case C-144/04, Mangold, [2005] ECR I-9981.
2. Case C-550/07, Akzo Nobel Chemicals, judgment of 14 Sept. 2010, nyr.
3. E.g. Mangold, cited previous note.
4. Case C-555/07, Kücükdeveci, judgment of 19 Jan. 2010, nyr.
5. E.g. Case C-101/08, Audiolux, judgment of 15 Oct. 2009, nyr.
6. Entitled "The constitutional allocation of powers and general principles of EU law".
7. E.g. Editorial, "Horizontal Direct Effect - A Law of Diminishing Coherence?", 43 CML Rev. (2006), 1.
8. Tobler, "Putting Mangold in Perspective", 44 CML Rev. (2007), 1177.
9. Thüsing and Horler, Annotation of Kücükdeveci, 47 CML Rev. (2010), 1161.
10. Note that we are not directly concerned here with the distinct concept of a measure falling "within the scope of application of the Treaties" in the sense of Art. 18 TFEU (ex 12 EC), for the specific purpose of applying the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, which has long been handled separately by the Court: consider rulings such as Case 186/87, Cowan v. Trésor public, [1989] ECR 195.
11. Cases C-92 & 326/92, Phil Collins, [1993] ECR I-5145.
12. Case C-209/03, Bidar, [2005] ECR I-2119.
13. E.g. Case C-377/98, Netherlands v. Parliament and Council, [2001] ECR I-7079 (legislature).
14. Case C-404/92 P, X v. Commission, [1994] ECR I-4737 (executive).
15. Case C-185/95 P, Baustahlgewebe v. Commission, [1998] ECR I-8417 (judiciary).
16. E.g. Case 5/88, Wachauf, [1989] ECR 2609.
17. Cases C-31-44/91, Lageder, [1993] ECR I-1761.
18. Cases C-20 & 64/00, Booker Aquaculture, [2003] ECR I-7411.
19. E.g. Case C-260/89, ERT, [1991] ECR I-2925.
20. Case C-368/95, Familiapress, [1997] ECR I-3689.
21. E.g. Case C-159/90, SPUC v. Grogan, [1991] ECR I-4685.
22. Case C-299/95, Kremzow, [1997] ECR I-2629.
23. th ed, (Kluwer Law International, 2001), pp 35-37.
24. Case C-427/06, Bartsch, [2008] ECR I-7245, para 69 of the Opinion.
25. The main authority cited is usually Joined Cases C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 & C-47/96, Garage Molenheide, [1997] ECR I-7281.
26. But this ruling could more naturally be understood as a manifestation of the right to effective judicial protection for the enforcement of the relevant substantive Union law rights.
27. See Dougan, National Remedies Before the Court of Justice (Hart Publishing, 2004) Ch 5.
28. E.g. Case C-144/95, Maurin, [1996] ECR I-2909.
29. Case C-309/96, Annibaldi, [1997] ECR I-7493.
30. Case C-36/99, Idéal Tourisme, [2000] ECR I-6049.
31. Further: Eeckhout, "The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Federal Question", 39 CML Rev. (2002), 945.
32. Knook, "The Court, the Charter and the Vertical Division of Powers in the European Union", 42 CML Rev. (2005), 367.
33. E.g. Case C-2/97, Borsana, [1998] ECR I-8597.
34. Case C-6/03, Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe, [2005] ECR I-2753.
35. Case C-82/09, Dimos Agiou Nikolaou Kritis, judgment of 22 April 2010, nyr.
36. E.g. Case C-410/96, André Ambry, [1998] ECR I-7875.
37. Case C-322/01, Deutscher Apothekerverband, [2003] ECR I-14887.
38. Case C-441/04, A-Punkt Schmuckhandels, [2006] ECR I-2093.
39. Case C-71/02, Karner, [2004] ECR I-3025.
40. Cf. de Cecco, "Room to Move? Minimum Harmonization and Fundamental Rights", 43 CML Rev. (2006), 9.
41. O.J. 1999, L 175/43.
42. O.J. 2000, L 303/16.
43. E.g. Case 148/78, Ratti, [1979] ECR 1629.
44. Case C-212/04, Adeneler, [2006] ECR I-6057.
45. E.g. Case 152/84, Marshall, [1986] ECR 723.
46. Case C-91/92, Faccini Dori, [1994] ECR I-3325.
47. E.g. Case C-81/05, Cordero Alonso, [2006] ECR I-7569.
48. nd ed. (OUP, 2005) Ch. 5.
49. Indeed, it might well be that the Court (albeit silently and thus not terribly helpfully) still conceived of the situation in Kücükdeveci as being one of "implementation", albeit in a rather broader manner than that suggested by Bartsch, on the basis that the Member State's obligation to transpose includes also a duty actively to "tidy up" pre-existing legislation which should now be considered inconsistent with the relevant directive.
50. Particularly in the case of "horizontal" measures such as Directive 2000/78 that impose binding obligations (the right to equal treatment) as regards significant fields of national policy (employment law) important aspects of which are not otherwise regulated by specific measures of Union law (e.g. wages and dismissal).
51. At least as regards binding Union acts adopted in fields of shared competence. Who is to guess what the position might be as regards non-binding measures or those adopted in fields of complementary / supporting Union competence? In that regard, consider the approach under Article 18 TFEU (ex 12 EC), where Union complementary / supporting competence over a given subject matter does seem capable of triggering the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, e.g. Case 293/83, Gravier, [1985] ECR 593.
52. On justifications for scrutiny of national action under the general principles of Union law, consider Spaventa, "Federalisation v. Centralisation: Tensions in Fundamental Rights Discourse in the EU" in Dougan and Currie (Eds.), 50 Years of the European Treaties: Looking Back and Thinking Forward (Hart Publishing, 2009). Note that EU fundamental rights scrutiny, even as regards Member State derogations, still remains controversial.
53. Huber, "The Unitary Effect of the Community's Fundamental Rights: The ERT Doctrine Needs to be Reviewed", 14 EPL (2008), 323.
54. Nic Shuibhne, "Margins of Appreciation: National Values, Fundamental Rights and EC Free Movement Law", 34 EL Rev. (2009), 230.
55. Within the limits to which the latter may produce independent effects in the national legal systems.
56. At the time of writing, relevant case law is rapidly burgeoning but as yet provides only limited insights into this important question: besides Kücükdeveci, consider also, e.g. Case C-403/09 PPU, Detiček, judgment of 23 Dec. 2009, nyr.
57. Case C-578/08, Chakroun, judgment of 4 March 2010, nyr.
58. Case C-211/10 PPU, Povse, judgment of 1 July 2010, nyr.
59. Case C-550/07, Akzo Nobel Chemicals, judgment of 14 Sept. 2010, nyr.
60. Case C-149/10, Chatzi, judgment of 16 Sept. 2010, nyr.
61. Case C-400/10 PPU, McB, judgment of 5 Oct. 2010, nyr.
62. Case C-243/09, Fuß, judgment of 14 Oct. 2010, nyr.
63. As is already the case, thanks to Art. 18 TFEU (ex 12 EC), with the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality.
64. Further: de Búrca, "The Drafting of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights", 26 EL Rev. (2001), 126.
65. Besselink, "The Member States, the National Constitutions and the Scope of the Charter", 8 MJ (2001), 68.
66. nd ed. (Hart Publishing, 2010).