• 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...

Introduction

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.

Middle

"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.

Conclusion

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. What are the outer limits of Article 28 EU?

    Before Cassis anything that fell within the Dasonville formula would be a breach of Article 28 and could only be justified by Article 30. Since the Cassis case courts have used the rule of reason to Article 28, and where necessary it concerns indistinctly applicable measures.

  2. The democratic deficit is a concept created by the euro sceptics regarding the European ...

    European elites, which are engaged and they are fully participating in the EU policies. However it is the case because the EU rarely considers the issues, which are regarding the scope of knowledge of the regular citizen. Most of the issues discussed by the EU are the matters requiring professional level of expertise on the subject.

  1. The Luxembourg Compromise is, in fact, an agreement in case very important national interests ...

    Moreover, it is likely that the public will only be informed of invocation at ministerial level and not below, thus there is a lack of knowledge regarding how their affairs are being decided. Restricting the use of the Luxembourg Compromise is seen to encourage inter-governmentalism though.

  2. Predatory pricing strategies in the European union: A case for legal reform.

    The price-below-cost requirement Although a variety of non-cost standards has been proposed in the American legal literature for the definition of predatory pricing, [FN26] the majority of *217 scholars seem to focus on the relation between an alleged predator's prices and costs to allege predation, as also did the Areeda

  1. Critically evaluate the impact of the E.U. Directive on Copyright in an Information Society, ...

    Nothing in the Directive affords them any protection against prosecution. Both the DMCA and this EU Directive seemed to have made the same mistake. Though created a number of years apart, it seems the EU has not taken on board the effect of the DMCA in reducing the pace of cryptographic research.

  2. How far has the creation of a single market in goods resulted in the ...

    These are construed very narrowly by the courts63. Preserve states' sovereignty in commercial activity is not important in this. A.30 also provides discriminatory measures are not justified if they are "arbitrary". This is an important extension both enabling and restricting states freedom in commercial activity depending on the circumstances.

  1. EU Law - age discrimination and market access case studies.

    In B's case, the magazine she wishes to advertise in is aimed at the target audience of her jewellery so would be efficient while being cheaper than paying for a national billboard or television campaign, and as domestic brands will be more well known to the people of Denmark than

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

    In simple terms this is a form of backdoor direct effect. Marleasing reinforced the indirect effect doctrine by confirming that there is a duty to interpret national law to comply with a directive, regardless of whether the applicable national law entered into force before or after the directive.

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