30th
EUropa.S. 2018
March 30 – April 2nd | University of Piraeus
Organized by: Institute of Research & Training on European Affairs
EUropa.S. 2018 European Court of Justice
Study Guide and Case
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
Table of Contents Greeting of the Board __________________________________________________ 3 Composition of the European Court of Justice __________________________________ 4 Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice____________________________________ 6 Precedent _______________________________________________________________ 7 Direct Actions (Infringement Proceedings) _____________________________________ 7 The Stages of the infringement proceedings ____________________________________ 8 Core Articles of the TFEU ___________________________________________________ 8 Core Articles of the EUCFR _________________________________________________ 11
EUropa.S. 2018 ECJ Case _______________________________________________ 14 Case Law ___________________________________________________________ 16 Bibliography ________________________________________________________ 17
EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 2
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
Greeting of the Board Dear Participants, it is an honor to welcome you in this year’s EUropa.S. and more specifically in the European Court of Justice. As an EU institution, the European Court of Justice was first introduced in EUropa.S. in 2014 and has since enjoyed a successful course. In 2015, it was awarded the best Institution of the Simulation, so it is understandable that both the level of competition and the quality and experience of the participants are high. This year’s case consists of an action of the Commission against an EU member state (Latvia), involving issues of equality of the citizens of the EU and the prohibition of extradition. In comparison, thus, to other years, this case will encircle fundamental human rights, deriving from the Treaties. In this study guide, you will find basic information regarding the Court’s functioning, as well as the Case. Furthermore, essential information considering principal articles of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (hence TFEU) and the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights (hence EUCFR) have been included, as a springboard to your own further research. Should you require further assistance, all members of the Board are more than eager to answer your questions. We would like to thank you upfront for your interest in the European Court of Justice and we are certain that our collaboration is going to be superb. We wish you all the best!
Best regards, The Board of the European Court of Justice
EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 3
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
Composition of the European Court of Justice1 For the purpose of European construction, the Member States signed numerous Treaties creating first the European Communities which led to the formation of the European Union as we know it today, with instructions which adopt laws in specified areas. The Court of Justice of the European Communities was the Community’s judicial institution and, as one of the institutions of the Union, it comprises three courts: The Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal. According to the Article 220 of the Treaty of Rome, the function of the ECJ is to ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaty the law is observed 2. The Court of Justice is composed of 27 Judges and 8 Advocates General. The Judges and Advocates-General are appointed by common accord of the governments of the member states and hold office for a term of six years. This term is renewable. Appointment and reappointment of the judges is staggered so that there is a partial replacement every three years. In practice, each member state nominates a judge whose nomination is then agreed upon by all the other member states. The Member States usually select their own nationals, although this is not explicitly provided for. In the same way the replacement of the Advocates-General is staggered so there is a partial replacement of four Advocates-General every three years. In addition, they are chosen from among lawyers, whose independence is beyond doubt, and who possess the qualifications required for appointment, in their respective countries, to the highest judicial offices, or who are of recognized competence. The Judges of the Court elect one of themselves as President of the Court for a renewable term of three years. The President directs the work and staff of the Court and presides at hearings and deliberations of the full Court or the Grand Chamber,
1
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_en#composition [Accessed 11 Dec. 2017] 2 Sixthformlaw.info. (2017). The role and composition of the European Court of Justice, including Article 234 references. [online] Available at: https://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod2/2_3_2_eu_sources/01_ecj_234_refs.htm [Accessed 11 Dec. 2017]. EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 4
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
directing both judicial business and administration. He also assigns cases to the chambers for examination and appoints judges as rapporteurs. The Advocates General assist the Court. They are responsible for presenting an “opinion” in the cases assigned to them. Under Article 223 of the Treaty of Rome, among his duties is to research all the legal points involved and to present publicly, with complete impartiality and independence, reasoned conclusions on cases submitted to the Court of Justice with a view to assisting the latter in the performance of its duties. The Article 223 of the Treaty of Rome provides for the appointment of a Registrar. The Registrar of the ECJ is the institution’s secretary general and manages its departments under the authority of the President of the Court, his task concerns organizational and procedural questions. The Court may sit as a full court, in a Grand Chamber of 13 Judges or in Chambers of 3 or 5 judges. The Court sits as a full court in the particular cases prescribed by the Statute of the Court and where the Court considers that a case is of exceptional importance. It sits in a Grand Chamber when a Member State or an institution which is a party to the proceedings so requests, and in particularly complex or important cases. Other cases are heard by Chambers of three or five judges. The Presidents of the Chambers of five judges are elected for three years, and those of the Chambers of three judges for one year. The EU judicial institution simulated in EUropa.S. 2018 is the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice. Therefore, the Court of Justice will only apply the Rules of Procedure of EUropa.S. 2018
EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 5
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice3 In order to properly fulfill its task, the Court has been given a clearly defined jurisdiction, which exercises on references for preliminary rulings and in various categories of proceedings, most importantly: 1. References for preliminary rulings: To ensure the effective and uniform application of EU law and to prevent divergent interpretations, the courts of the Member States may, and sometimes must, refer to the Court of Justice and request the clarification of a point concerning the Interpretation of the EU law, so that they may ascertain, for example, whether their national legislation complies with that law. The Court of Justice's reply is not merely an opinion but takes the form of a judgment or reasoned order, which is not only binding for the said national court but for all other national courts as well. 2. Actions for failure to fulfill obligations: The action may be brought by the Commission or, rarely, by a Member State. If the Court finds that an obligation has not been fulfilled, the State must bring the failure to an end without delay. lf, after a further action is brought by the Commission, the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment, it may impose on it a fixed or periodic financial penalty. 3. Actions for annulment: By an action for annulment, the applicant, usually a Member State, seeks the annulment of a measure (regulation, directive or decision) adopted by an institution (the European Parliament or the Council). Actions for annulment may be also brought by one Community institution against another. 4 Actions for failure to act: These actions enable the lawfulness of Community institutions' failures to act to be reviewed. 5. Appeals from the General Court on points of law
3
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2008-11/en_cj_comp.pdf [Accessed 10 Dec. 2017] EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 6
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
Precedent4 The doctrine of precedent (stare decisis) does not apply to the Court of Justice. However, the Court generally is consistent with its own previous decisions. It is usual for lawyers to cite previous case law when arguing a point of law before the Court. Indeed, the Advocate General in his Opinion, and the Court in its judgment, will generally refer to previous cases.
Direct Actions (Infringement Proceedings) The Commission, as an independent Institution acts in the General Interest of the EU and is able to start the “infringement proceedings”5. This procedure is settled by several stages under the article 258 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)6. In cases of a breach of Community environment law, such as the incorrect application of the single market’s rules, or a late/ incorrect transportation of an EU directive by a Member State, “infringement proceedings” are appropriate in order to quit the breach. Infringement proceedings involve two principal actors, Court of Justice aside: The Commission and the Defendant State. Meanwhile, when the European Court of Justice comes across a violation, the Member State concerned must then take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Justice. Since the entry into force of the infringements procedure, the Court enjoys the power to impose financial sanctions on Member States which fail to take such actions. Once the infringement proceedings are set in motion, the Court insists on strict compliance by the Commission with the procedural requirements by the Article 258 TFEU. The procedure begins when the Commission sends a “letter of formal notice”
4
FAIRHURST J., (2010), Law of the European Union, 8th ed., Pearson Education Limited, pg.
161162. 5
Ec.europa.eu. (2017). Infringements - European Commission. [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/performance_by_governance_tool/infringements/in dex_en.htm [Accessed 11 Dec. 2017]. 6 Ec.europa.eu. (2017). Infringements - Legislation - Environment - European Commission. [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/procedure.htm [Accessed 11 Dec. 2017]. EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 7
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
to the Member State in question. The deadline is of particular importance and must be laid down in the reasoned opinion for compliance by the Member State. However, only the Court of Justice can rule definitively that a breach of EU law has occurred.
The Stages of the infringement proceedings7 The infringement proceedings consist of a series of stages: 1. The Commission sends a letter of formal notice to the Member State requesting further information. 2. In case the Commission concludes that the Member State is failing to fulfill its obligations under EU law, it may send a reasoned opinion: a formal request to comply with EU law. In the opinion, it explains the breach of law and requests the country to inform the Commission of the measures taken. 3. In case the Member State does not comply, the Commission may decide to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. 4. If the Court finds that a country has breached EU law, the national authorities must take action to comply with the Court judgment.
Core Articles of the TFEU Article 188: 'Αny discrimination on grounds of nationality' is regulated by the Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). According to its provisions, all nationals and, especially, EU citizens should be treated equally. The scope of the Article 18 is to expand the regulation for the protection of every kind of discrimination and to cover any kind of incidents which are not regulated by specific rights of non-discrimination. For instance, vocational training is established in order to be achieved an equal access to university education for individuals under the scope of Article 18. In Case 293/83, Gravier, it is obvious the existence of additional fees for non-nationals taking into consideration that secondary law provisions
7
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/applying-eu-law/infringementprocedure_en [Accessed 11. Dec 2017] 8 https://www.lawteacher.net/international-conventions/general-principle-of-nondiscrimination-article-18-tfeu.php [Accessed 14 Dec. 2017] EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 8
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
provided support to Member States under Article 166 TFEU which allowed the court to apply Article 18. Article 18 can be invoked by all EU citizens exploiting their right to free movement. Aiming to all the free movement of citizens, Article 18 ensures the existence of the principle of equal treatment. As under article 45 the free movement of workers constitutes one of the most fundamental and important rights provided to individuals into the territory of the European Union, Article 18 fills in the Article 45. Article 18 is, thus, applicable when ascertaining the rights of workers as also shown in Netherlands v Reed. Consequently, as Morris stated; ‘individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). It is supposed for strong and far-reaching rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do. The main function of Article 18 is the prohibition of any discrimination on the grounds of nationality and, thus, to offer appropriate protection to individuals. In Case C-300/04 Eman and Sevinger, it was recognized by the court that Article 18 aims to ensure that 'comparable situations are not treated differently and different situations are not treated the same unless such treatment can be objectively justified.' In addition, the aforementioned equal treatment of all residents provided by Article 18 and the fact that a variety of situations is governed by EU law are shown in Case 39/86 Lair. This means that ‘the cases must have a factor linking them with any of the situations governed by community law.’In effect, the limited horizontal direct effect of Article 18 is as it only exists in certain circumstances as signified in Case 36/74 Walgrave and Koch and Ferlini. Furthermore, in Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre, it was proven that the Article’ s provisions could be relied upon by the courts so as to ensure that individuals are not being discriminated against because of their nationality. In that case, a student was said to have been discriminated against when he was not provided with a right of residence while he was exercising the right to free movement. In view of this decision, it was stated by Miller that; ‘where the free
EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 9
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
movement of persons is at issue, argumentation can mainly or exclusively make use of Article 18 EC for reasons of simplification.’ TFEU Exceptions The free movement of persons is an integral right that is provided to individuals within the EU, yet it is important an unnecessary burden is not being placed upon Member States. As a result of this, two main exceptions to the free movement of persons were introduced. The first exception provided Member States with the ability to place restrictions on EU migrant workers from undertaking employment in the public service (Article 45 (4) and on self-employed persons to engage in activities that are connected with 'the exercise of official authority' (Article 51). The second exception allows restrictions to be placed upon the free movement of persons on the grounds of public policy, public security and public health.' These exceptions were introduced so that Member States could be provided with the ability to restrict certain posts and thus limit the rights of non-nationals from activating their right of residence under EU law. The aim of the exceptions was to ensure that the interests of Member States could be safeguarded, yet it has been said that such exceptions ‘represent a barrier to promotion of non-nationals.’ Nevertheless, these exceptions have been construed narrowly by the courts so as to ensure that the right to free movement is preserved, whilst also ensuring public security protection. In order to ensure that the exceptions are only being used for their intended purpose, it has been specifically expressed in the Citizen Directive that member states 'cannot apply restrictions to the free movement as means to serve economic ends.' Article 21: According to the provisions of the Article 21 of the TFEU: “Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect. [...]”. Taking this provision into consideration, in combination with the Article 18 TFEU (ex-12 EC), a principle is established in order to create rights for citizens when they are in another Member State of the Union, referring to the right of free movement. EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 10
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
Article 21(1) TFEU9 can only be relied on ‘where the residence of the Union citizen in the host Member State has been sufficiently genuine so as to enable that citizen to create or strengthen family life in that Member State’. This implies that the EU citizen must have lawfully resided in the host Member State for more than three months (in accordance with Article 7 of Directive 2004/38) or even have acquired a permanent residence right there (pursuant to Article 16 of the directive).
Core Articles of the EUCFR The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union10 – Article 19 Article 19 concerning the “Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition” states: 1. Collective expulsions are prohibited. 2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. According to the “Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights”11 which were prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention, Paragraph 1 of this Article has the same meaning and scope as Article 4 of Protocol N°4 to the ECHR12 concerning collective expulsion. Its purpose is to guarantee that every decision is based on a specific examination and that no single measure can be taken to expel all persons having the nationality of a particular State13.
9
Rogers, N., Scannell, R. and Walsh, J. (2012). Free movement of persons in the enlarged European Union. London: Sweet & Maxwell. 10 European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 26 October 2012, 2012/C 326/02, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b70.html [Accessed 12 Dec. 2017] 11 2007/C 303/02 12 Council of Europe, Protocol 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, securing certain Rights and Freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the First Protocol thereto, 16 September 1963, ETS 46, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3780.html 13 See also Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171 EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 11
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
“Collective expulsion” is to be understood as any measure compelling aliens, as a group, to leave a country, except where such a measure is taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual alien of the group. Therefore, “that a number of aliens are subject to similar decisions does not in itself lead to the conclusion that there is a collective expulsion if each person concerned has been given the opportunity to put arguments against his expulsion to the competent authorities on an individual basis”. There is no violation of article 4 if the lack of an individual expulsion decision is a consequence of the applicant’s culpable conduct. If an applicant’s asylum claim is treated individually and an individual decision is issued, it cannot be considered to be a collective expulsion14. Paragraph 2 incorporates case law from the European Court of Human Rights regarding Article 315 of the ECHR.16 Article 19 also references 17 the Article 1 of the Protocol N°7 to the ECHR 18concerning
the “Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens”, which
states: 1. An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State shall not be expelled there from except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed: a) to submit reasons against his expulsion, b) to have his case reviewed, and c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons designed by that authority.
14
William A. Schabas, “The European Convention on Human Rights”, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 1077 15 Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b04.html [Accessed 12 Dec. 2017] 16 Ahmed v. Austria, 71/1995/577/663, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 17 December 1996, available at: http://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,3ae6b62f2c.html and Soering v. The United Kingdom, Soering v. The United Kingdom, 1/1989/161/217 , Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 7 July 1989, available at: http://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,3ae6b6fec.html 17 https://rm.coe.int/16802f5eb7 [Accessed 13 Dec. 2017] 18 Council of Europe, Protocol 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 22 November 1984, ETS 117, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3654.html [accessed 10 December 2017] EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 12
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
2. An alien may be expelled before the exercise of his rights under paragraph 1.a, b, and c of the Article, when such expulsion is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security. Article 4 of the Charter, which is closely related to Article 19, concerning the Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The right in Article 4 is the right guaranteed by Article 3 of the ECHR, which has the same wording. Therefore, by virtue of Article 52(3) of the Charter, it therefore has the same meaning and the same scope as the ECHR Article. Article 4 restricts the type of treatment that Member States can inflict on non-EU nationals in their care. It also limits expulsions to third states. The European Court of Human Rights has held that Member States which expel an individual to be tortured in a third state are as responsible for that torture as the perpetrating state. It also prohibits any expulsion to a state where an individual will not be tortured but will undergo considerable suffering. As an absolute prohibition, it applies regardless of the conduct of the victim or the nature of any offense that has allegedly been committed. The European Court of Human Rights has rejected the suggestion that it should apply Article 3 more flexibly, in particular in cases involving expulsion or refoulement, simply because the alleged victim is associated with terrorist activities 19 . As the Court has noted, “the prohibition of torture occupies a prominent place in all international instruments on the protection of human rights”, while the “International Court of Justice” has described the prohibition of torture as part of customary international law, adding that it has become a peremptory norm (jus cogens).
19
William A. Schabas, “The European Convention on Human Rights”, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 168 EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 13
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
EUropa.S. 2018 ECJ Case EUROPEAN COMMISSION vs LATVIA Diego Fernandes, a Spanish national and Aleksei Kirillovic, a Latvian national have been, since 2012, smuggling large amounts of drugs from Spain to the Kingdom of Morocco. On the 21st of June, 2014, they were made the subjects of a priority Red Notice on Interpol’s website. Under these circumstances, by the end of June, 2014, a European Arrest Warrant was issued by the Latvian courts. Both suspects were arrested on August 10th, 2014. On October 20th, 2014, the Latvian courts received an extradition request from the Prosecutor-General of Morocco, regarding both perpetrators. The request stated the aforementioned was accused, under Moroccan law, of large scale organized drug trafficking. The Latvian Public Prosecutor’s Office authorized Diego Fernandes’ extradition request to Morocco. However, the request for Aleksei Kirillovic’s extradition was not authorized, due to a provision of the Latvian Constitution, which prohibits the extradition of a Latvian national to a foreign country. In this claim, they stated that no violation of the fundamental EU principles had occurred, since the Commission was long aware of this same article of the Latvian constitution and did not take immediate action. Moreover, due to the absence of of an international agreement between the European Union and the third country concerned, the rules of extradition are applicable within the competence of each Member State, in this case Latvia. On November 10th, Diego Fernandes filed an appeal against the extradition, on the ground that, as a European Union’s citizen, he enjoys the same freedoms and rights as a citizen of another Member State. As such, he shall enjoy the same rights as his accomplish, Aleksei Kirillovic. Furthermore, in his appeal, he stated that, since Morocco has not been a member of the European Convention on Human Rights and is furthermore notorious for the lack of dignity its’ forces show in the treatment of detainees and prisoners, he may not be extradited to the third country.
EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 14
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
Having heard the complaints of Diego Fernandes, the European Commission, respecting the preliminary of Article 258 of the TFEU initially sent an informal letter and continued with the formal notice of a warning letter, asking the Latvian authorities for explanations regarding both the above mentioned constitutional provision and the failure to comply with the Articles of the Treaties. In response to the formal letter, Latvia stated that they retain the right for the extradition of Diego Fernandes, primarily because he is not a national of that State, as Aleksei Kirillovic. Secondly, the Latvian authorities claimed that the European Commission has no right to interfere with Latvia’s Constitution, since from Latvia’s joining in the European Union, in September of 2003, their Constitution has not been amended, and this same provision, upon which they based Diego Fernandes’ extradition, has been used numerous times before. Thus, since the Commission was long aware of this but did not take immediate action, this constitutional provision stands in accordance with the European Union’s values. Furthermore, the Latvian authorities claimed that other member states, namely Estonia, also included such provisions in their legislation. As a result, since the Commission had not taken action against those other member states, Latvia underlined that the non-reciprocity principle should be implemented. Subsequently, the European Commission was not convinced by the explanations given by the Latvian authorities and came back with an opinion requesting the compliance with EU Law, setting a deadline of 4 months. Since Latvia refused to adhere to the guidelines set by the Commission, the latter delivered another reasoned opinion, involving all the violations of EU primary law the Latvian authorities were perpetrating, giving them a deadline of 2 months, in order for them to take action. Failing to do so, the European Commission brought the subject before the European Court of Justice. Questions that have to be addressed by the Court are: 1) Whether the Latvian authorities’ claim on the lapse of a long period of time that the Commission did not take action is valid. EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 15
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
2) Whether the Latvian authorities’ claim on the implementation of the nonreciprocity principle is valid. 3) Whether there has been a breach of the EU primary law, based on the TFEU. 4) Whether the Latvian authorities, by permitting the extradition, violated articles of the EUCFR.
Case Law In this section, you may come across various cases before the European Court of Justice, considering the application of the aforementioned articles of the TFEU and the EUCFR.
Case C-456/12 Case C-457/12 Case C-370/90 Singh Case C-291/05 Eind C-85/96 Martinez Sala C-138/02 Collins C-258/04 Ioannidis C-224/02 Pusa C-406/04 De Cuyper C-192/05 Tas-Hagen C-200/02 Chen CJEU - C-182/15 / Judgment CJEU - C-182/15 / Opinion CJEU - C-239/14 / Judgment CJEU - C 542/13 / Judgment EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 16
European Court of Justice - Study Guide
CJEU - C 562/13 / Judgment CJEU - C 562/13 / Opinion CJEU - Joined cases C 411/10 and C 493/10 / Judgment CJEU - Joined cases C 175/08, C 176/08, C 178/08 and C 179/08 / Judgment CJEU - C 465/07 / Judgment
Bibliography •
Article 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/47.
•
Article 49of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/47.
•
Article 61 C, D, G of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/47.
•
Council of Europe, Protocol 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, securing certain Rights and Freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the First Protocol thereto, 16 September 1963.
•
European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 26 October 2012, 2012/C 326/02
•
Fairhurst J., (2010), Law of the European Union, 8th ed., Pearson Education Limited, pg. 161162.
•
Rogers, N., Scannell, R. and Walsh, J. (2012). Free movement of persons in the enlarged European Union. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
•
William A. Schabas, “The European Convention on Human Rights”, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 1077
EUropa.S. 2018, March 30th – April 2nd, Athens, Greece europas.irtea@gmail.com | www.europas.irtea.gr Page 17