European Union Law Issues - Case Study Example

EU LAW SUMMATIVE WORK ASSIGNMENT LAW 2K11 to Teaching Hub, Arts Building on FAIZA SHAHABUDDIN Number: 100030383 Seminar Group: Seminal Leader: European Union Law WORD COUNT: Sylvia Sylvia had been residing and working in the Member State Y of the European Union (EU) for the past year. As such, she was a national of the Member State X of the EU. Sylvia had married Luis, a Uruguayan, two and a half years ago. After obtaining employment in the country Y, this couple decided that she was to take up the employment and settle down at that place. Sylvia and her husband came to the decision that he should join her, later on. Thus, Luis planned to join her in that country. However, they discovered that the laws of the country Y permitted spouses not belonging to the EU, to join their spouse to reside in country Y, only when the couple had been married for a minimum of three years. In addition, the government of nation Y had expressly stipulated that this legislation was to be applied by the courts till such time as they had not been amended or repealed by another law enacted by Parliament. For assessing the rights of Sylvia with regard to her spouse joining her in the Member State Y, the following issues need to be discussed. Council Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998, establishes a procedure for furnishing information in the area of technical standards and regulations. The internal market of the EU is comprised of a region that is devoid of internal frontiers. In this internal market the free movement of capital, goods, persons, and services has been ensured.1 As a consequence, there is a strong prohibition upon implementing limitations on the movement of goods. It is also prohibited to adopt measures that are equivalent to restricting the free movement of goods.2 This is a fundamental principle of the European Community. The Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003, provides the following under Article 8. Member States can insist that sponsors should have legally resided in their territory for a period that does not exceed two years, prior to their family members joining them.3 With regard to derogation, if the legislation of a Member State pertaining to family reunification that is in force on the date of adoption of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003, considers its reception capacity, then the concerned Member State can permit a waiting period that does not exceed three years between submission of the application for the family reunification and the issuance of a residence permit to such members of family of the sponsor.4 As such, according to the above discussion, the decision of the Member State Y, with respect to Sylvia’s husband joining her in Y is not arbitrary or unreasonable. This is due to the fact that such decisions will be based on the reception capacity of the concerned Member State and the waiting period is to be determined after taking all related factors, such as the sponsor’s financial capacity, into consideration. Hence, Sylvia cannot raise any claim against the Member State Y, regarding this issue. Frank’s Case Frank, Sylvia’s father has worked and lived in the nation Y for several years. He is a national of country X. After his retirement, he decided to settle in this country. The nation Y provides a war pension for all the people who had served during World War II. During this war, Frank had served in the army of nation X, and as a consequence, he applied for this pension. The nation Y rejected his application, on the grounds that it was provided only to the nationals of its country. The authorities informed Frank that he could take up his dispute with the War Pensions Tribunal, whose decision would be final. At the hearing, Frank contended that delegated legislation violated EU law and that the tribunal should undertake a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in order to confirm this point. The tribunal refused to make any such reference. For assessing the Rights of Frank with respect to Preliminary Reference to the CJEU, regarding his pension rights, the following discussion has been made. In a land mark case of the Czech Republic namely, Marie Landtová v Česká správa socialního zabezpečení,5 the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic held that EU law was inapplicable to the facts of this particular case. Czechoslovakia had been divided into two nations, and unequal treatment had been accorded to the old age pensioners of the previous federal state, where the employer was located in the other nation.6 It is unnecessary to make a reference for a preliminary ruling, if the issue to be resolved is similar to a question that had been addressed by the CJEU in a preliminary ruling in a similar case. This is the import of the ruling in Da Costa en Schaake NV, Jacob Meijer NV, Hoechst-Holland NV v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration,7 Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health8 and Parfums Christian Dior SA and Parfums Christian Dior BV v Evora BV.9 In these rulings, the correct interpretation of EU law was self-evident. Furthermore, these criteria should have effectively precluded the abuse of the preliminary ruling procedure. It was also made very clear, in the rulings that the national courts had to act in a bona fide manner and should not circumvent EU law. A query regarding discrimination in Marie Landtová v Česká správa socialního zabezpečení was deemed to be theoretical. 10 Similarly in our case, the pension tribunal was reluctant to refer the decision regarding pension to the CJEU for a preliminary hearing. This was with respect to not extending pension privileges to non-nationals of the country Y. According to the above decision, the country Y was entitled to refuse pension payments to individuals who were not its nationals. Since the case had involved a specific situation, it could not be deemed that the Pension Tribunal of the nation Y had contravened the EU law, while rejecting the preliminary procedures. This was clearly mentioned in the aforementioned Czech case’s ruling. Thus, in accordance with the discussed case law, there is no need to refer such tribunal decided matters to preliminary procedures. Hence, Frank cannot seek any redressal against the tribunal’s decision for failing to refer to preliminary procedures. In addition, Frank had purchased a mobility scooter from ZipAlong, a company based in the Member State Z. The presence of a novel innovation in this mobility scooter of ZipAlong had prevented the sale of this scooter in the country Y. The Minister for Transport for nation Y, in view of the very powerful motor in this scooter, had ordered that this scooter could be used in public places, only by certain people. Such individuals should have completed a state recognised course and procured a qualifying licence. These measures were adopted, in view of the increasing number of accidents involving mobility scooters. In some of these accidents, pedestrians had undergone serious and long-term injuries. For assessing the rights of Frank with respect to licencing and training requirements of his vehicle, the following issues need to be taken up for discussion. At present, there is considerable similarity in the conditions to be satisfied, prior to the issue of a driving licence, among the Member States of the EU. All the same, differences persist, when it comes to the requirements that have to be met, prior to the issuance of a driving licence for the first time or prior to the renewal of a driving licence that had been subjected to disqualification.11 Thus, the EU Driving Licence Directive,12 merely stipulates that Member States have to implement minimum standards of mental and physical fitness. Furthermore, the presence of differences in driver training and testing denote the fact that there are divergent conditions in specific Member States, which seldom satisfy the requirements in all Member States. 13 As a consequence, the Member State Y is justified in imposing several restrictions upon the driving of the mobility scooter, on account of the increased number of severe accidents, due to this mobility scooter. As such, the decision of the minister of the state Y is justified and relevant to the particular situation. In the absence of such a decision, accidents can be reasonably expected to be on the increase. According to the EU Driving Licence Directive, Member States can be at variance in their decisions with regard to the standards of licencing and training requirements. Their decisions regarding licencing should be relevant to the needs of that particular state and particular type of vehicle. Therefore, Frank cannot question this decision of the Member State Y, which limits the area of movement of this innovative and high power mobility scooter. Bibliography Textbooks Syrpis, P, The Judiciary, the Legislature and the EU Internal Market, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 59. Journal Articles Pitrová L, ‘The Judgment of the Czech Constitutional Court in the “Slovak Pensions” case and its possible consequences’ (2013) 3(2) The Lawyer Quarterly, 86. Cases Case C-399/09 Marie Landtová v Česká správa socialního zabezpečení [2011] ECR I-05573. Case C-337/95 Parfums Christian Dior SA and Parfums Christian Dior BV v Evora BV [1997] ECR I-06013. Case C-283/81 Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health [1982] ECR I-03415. Joined Cases C–28/62 to 30/62 Da Costa en Schaake NV, Jacob Meijer NV, Hoechst-Holland NV v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR I–00031. Statutes Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations OJ L204/37. Directive 2003/86/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification [2003] OJ L251. Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences OJ L406/18. Others — — ‘Validity of foreign driving licences in the Federal Republic of Germany’ (Federal Ministry of Transport and digital Infrastructure, 2014) accessed 1 August 2014. Read More