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

The scenario presented involves an Irish national, Gerard, who had migrated to the UK unaware of a new legislation which posed an obligation on him to register with the UK Border Agency upon arrival, because he was a non-UK national. Gerard appealed the d

Extracts from this document...


The scenario presented involves an Irish national, Gerard, who had migrated to the UK unaware of a new legislation which posed an obligation on him to register with the UK Border Agency upon arrival, because he was a non-UK national. Gerard's lack of knowledge for the legislation sited him in breach of the law and so it emerged that he must depart the UK within ten days. Gerard appealed the decision in front of an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal only to be unsuccessful in his efforts as the law was justified and later was denied the right for a referral to both the High Court and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The situation introduces the issues with the underlying mechanisms in the procedure of appealing national laws and the relationship between States and relevant authorities, such as the European Union, when considering contesting a legislation approved by a nation. The ultimate concerns with Gerard's case are those of legality of the legislation, which resulted in his notice of deportation being issued, whether the UK has led Gerard to be denied of his substantive rights, the admissibility of the conduct of the case by the institutions of the nation i.e. the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, and the solutions available to Gerard. When appealing against legislation set by a nation, in this case the UK, one is in effect pursuing a case in court against the UK government. In reviewing Gerard's problem, it is of utmost essence to consider the importance of EU law in understanding whether Gerard was ...read more.


"Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgement, it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it"16. It must be re iterated that the size and nature of the penalty is at the Court's discretion due to the nature of the supremacy of EC law. Fines can incur as an annual payment such as in Commission v Spain (case C-92/96)17or imposition of a daily fine multiplied by the number of days the infringement continued. As implied previously, the Commission's action against the Member State does "not provide redress to individuals"18 and it is the individuals role to retrieve this from the national institutions and their unions. Gerard's matter soon came before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal which is the national authority before which such matters of deportation appeals take place. In the tribunal it was argued that the law was justified on the basis of public security and this argument was accepted by the tribunal and Gerard was refused any further referrals to the High Court and the ECJ. However, the outcome of the tribunal did not provide full justice to Gerard and was not in conformity with EC law practices. Article 39 (3) EC provides that the right to prevent movement of persons within the Community can be restricted "on grounds of public policy, public security or public health"19. These grounds can only be utilised as a defence if the threat is serious and sufficient enough as seen in Rutlili v Minister for the Interior (case 36/75)20. ...read more.


It can be gathered that Gerard became a victim of an unjust law and was then victimised further with the erroneous demeanour of the national courts and tribunals. Gerard's solution lies within the EU law as the supremacy of its Treaties overrules the national law of Member States. It is duty of the relevant institution of the EC, the European Commission, to investigate whether a breach has taken place and on what grounds can charges be placed on the Member State. However, it is essential to note that the Commission cannot be compelled to take action to provide a form of redress for Gerard, but to enlighten the importance of adhering to EU law and to explain why a breach was created. National procedural autonomy must be considered to understand that legal systems of the Member States are independent of the ECJ and the ECJ does not have the right to interfere with the procedures of this unless the appeal presented to a court or tribunal concerns Community law. In this instance, reference, for clarity, must be made to the ECJ, either by the tribunal or the Supreme Court that the case has been transferred to. Under EU law, remedies for a breach of Community can be applied only if the breach is 'sufficiently serious'; if so, then a remedy of state liability is owed. Gerard cannot specifically claim damages for the tribunals failure to refer but is able to claim damages against breaches made by the national law of the Member State in incorrectly applying Community law and not referring to it. ...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. Assignment in EU Law

    directive 12/05 provides workers that if they serviced for at least two years are entitle to get one-month payment for each year of the service. Hence, Monique has worked for seven years. This would conclude that an unimplemented directive does not directly impose a legal obligation on the parties, but

  2. Company Law and Corporate Governance

    Corporate governance will always be a work-in-progress, which will constantly need reviewing with no specific end result.

  1. EU - problem question

    entitled to proceed without making a reference to the ECJ in the first place. Question 3 What remedies are available to Gerard for the Tribunal's failure to refer? The remedies discussed here will primarily focus on the doctrine of state liability for breach of EU law obligations.

  2. Eu Directives Problem Case. Difficulties arise in situations such as the one faced by ...

    Article 228 forces the State to take all steps to comply with the ECJ's decision in respect to the possible breach of obligation. It is this approach that it has been argued protects the rights of EU citizens: It can be argued that it is largely due to problems concerning the enforcement of directives, that state liability rules were developed.

  1. Direct effect is a community concept developed by the court of justice to apply ...

    to be obliged to compensate individuals for breach of European community law for which they are responsible. Firstly the objective of the directive must include the conferring of right to the individual. Secondly, that the content of the rights must be identifiable from the directive, there must be a casual link between the breach and the damage caused.

  2. Are EC directives directly applicable in member states?

    In order to find the cases, I used the case citator in the library and looked them up in chronological order. As there were quite a few cases relevant to the topic, this took quite a long time. After I had done this I had to see if any of


    Of all three barriers, technical barriers seems to be the most significant barriers because they cause the real obstacles to free movement of goods and the creation of the internal market. Thus, this research will mainly focus on technical barriers and will touch upon the others when necessary.

  2. impact of the Treaty of Lisbon

    is the fact that the ToL makes no reference to the primacy of EU law. It seems, however, to rely on a neighbouring declaration concerning primacy to reaffirm the fact that the case law of the European Court of Justice, for example Costa/ENEL6, has not and shall not be challenged

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