• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Critically assess the enforcement actions by the Commission brought upon the French government; the relevant TFEU articles need to be considered and the effectiveness of the use of secondary sources of EU law. Decision is the most pertinent secondary source and articles 258, 288 and 260.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

EU COURSEWORK In order to critically assess the enforcement actions by the Commission brought upon the French government; the relevant TFEU articles need to be considered and the effectiveness of the use of secondary sources of EU law. Decision is the most pertinent secondary source and articles 258, 288 and 260. This will be examined in greater detail and supported or refuted throughout with relevant arguments. A decision being most pertinent, under article 288 of the TFEU ?a decision shall be binding on its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them.? There this shows that any decisions the commissioner wishes to make, it is mandatory upon a member state to implement the request. Therefore as the commission had lifted the ban on importing poultry, the French government nevertheless, still continued to ban poultry importation. As there is a continuation of the breach of the law then the commission is entitled to take the relevant procedure to ensure effective remedy is available. C-387/97[1] is Greece failed to comply with the necessary obligations made by the commission as there was uncontrolled tipping of waste and subsequently the Commission was seeking damages. ...read more.

Middle

Case-240/86[2] is where there was a possibility of a breach relating to free movement of goods and Greece refused to give consent to the Commission to investigate. Subsequently as well as issuing procedure under 258 to investigate and prosecute, the Court of Justice also held that Greece was in fact in breach of article 10 of the EC. Secondly, this provides that, ?If the Commission considers...it shall deliver a reasoned opinion...may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union.? This states that it does not have to carry out a formal investigation but it is best to see if there is recognition of a breach. As the second stage is normally the formal notice which is if the issue is not resolved then a letter of communication is sent to the state concerned, in this case the French government, specifying the grounds of the breach. Furthermore, the commission does allow a 2 month time limit in which it can observe or the state in question can offer a defence. As it can be seen in Case-51/83[3]it is an essential procedural requirement. Finally, the reasoned opinion is the final pre-litigation period. ...read more.

Conclusion

as in the Case- 439/99[11] as this reaffirmed that it was inadmissible for the Commission to bring the case before the Court of Justice. Furthermore, if the obligations imposed on upon the member states have failed as in the Case- 382,383/92[12], this is where the UK failed to implement the working time Directive of the EU treaty provisions before the time limit and ended in breach of this law, the Commission may therefore move swiftly onto infringement proceedings. Therefore this proceeds to a judicial stage. The way in which this works is that the statement of the reasoned opinion cannot be challenged but if the case does go to referral; to the Court of Justice it is considered to be ?de novo?. This means that the administrative stage has to be repeated if the member state is found to be in breach and therefore reaches the judicial stage and the court of justice will enter a ?Declaratory Judgment.? ________________ [1] Commission v Greece ([1992] ECR I-2509) [2] Greece v Commission [3] Commission v Italy [4] Commission v Italy [5] Commission v Italy [6] Commission v Italy, [7] Same as footnote 6, paragraph 13 [8] Commission v France [9] Commission v Belgium [10] Commission v Italy [11] Commission v Italy [12] Commission v UK ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree European Union Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree European Union Law essays

  1. EU - problem question

    nature of the act and the amount of discretion available to the Member State. In the case R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd14 the ECJ held that: "...where, at the time when it committed the infringement, the Member State in question was

  2. What are the outer limits of Article 28 EU?

    Similarly both the cases of de Agostini58 and Gourmet59 fell outside the scope of Article 28. The court ruled that the advertising ban was total and emphasized that selling arrangements fell within the territory of national law, which means that they are non-discriminatory and any rules that that have a

  1. FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITHIN EU

    This can imply that the Community is now concerned not only trade but also social matters. The name of European Union(EU) has begun to appear to the international community since then. Basically, the European Union is based on three pillars.

  2. Company Law and Corporate Governance

    Company Law in Europe and employed a High Level Group of Company Law Experts46, to do just that. The main objective of the Report was to improve shareholder protection and restore confidence back in the system, which was inevitably shaken by the recent scandalous event47.

  1. What barriers must be removed in the European Union to ensure the free movement ...

    Exports are free of tax, with VAT being imposed on imports. Legal Basis. Article 9: States that the Community shall base itself upon a Customs Union, covering all trade regarding goods. This involves the prohibition between Member States of customs duties in imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect.

  2. EU institutions

    However it was revealed that such approach is ineffective by the reason of that the Council fulfils the legislative power and the prerogative of legal texts enactment can be professionally realized by the sectoral minister(for example minister of agriculture, health etc).

  1. EU Law - Albatros Pool problem case. Mark and Sunita must be advised that ...

    Yet the case of Marshall stemmed the possibility that there may be the possibility of horizontal direct effect, i.e. the ability for individuals to enforce their EU rights directly: Where a person involved in legal proceedings is able to rely upon a Directive as against the State, he may do

  2. What was the relationship between the Factortame case and the Treaty of Rome 1957?

    395 [9] European Economic Community [10] Common Fisheries Policy [11] British Fishing Boats Act 1983 [12] ibid [13] European Economic Community [14] Common Fisheries Policy [15] Sharon Hanson, Legal Method and Reasoning (2nd Edn, Cavendish Publishing Ltd, Great Britain 2003)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work