EU Law - the Behavior of the Government of France - Assignment Example

European Union law Question European legislations tend to appear in various forms. Regulations are often addressed to all the member countries and are often applied in full (Cajani, 2012). Such legislations are often directly applicable without the requirement for national legislation. Directives are however addressed to all the member countries but require a goal to be utilized by a given date. In order to conform to the directive within a given time frame, national authorities must draw up legislations. The implementation date is often referred to as transposition. In the United Kingdom, directive is often occasionally implemented by acts and by statutory bodies that are in place. Frank may not be compensated but Karem has no rights under the European Union of indirect and direct effects and state liability in respect of their injury. Both the member countries have implemented the directive, with Britain implementing the directive a few months after the latest date assigned for the implementation which was to be on 28th August 2013. The directive allows individuals to handle the diesel and petrol fuels as well as complying with the safety standard 3619. Britain, however, implements the directive without making the references to the safety standards and utilizes the word all sensible safety precautions (Caruso, 2006). Karem, who is a British national, is injured after the directive has been implemented. Karem works at a local authority fuel depot that is located in London. The handling procedure at the site predisposes him to the injury (DANIELSON, 2008). Even though the system does not comply with the safety standards 3619, the owners of the fuel depot will be considered liable as a result of the all sensible safety precautions that were imposed by the country and not the European Union. France is a member of the European Union and was able to implement the directive by a law that came into force on the 28 August 2013 that is the date which was allowed by the European Union. The implementation was in line with the directive save for the fact that the French law exempts fuel stations for vehicles that are privately owned and the fuel depot that sells more than one million liters of fuel in one year. The exemption from compliance is based on the fact that expenses will be excessive for smaller concerns. Even though only a few owners of the fuel depot would fall within such an exemption, the directive created does not possess such an exception (Data Protection Laws in the European Union, 2005). The owner of the station will not be liable to the fact that he sells less than a million liters and, therefore, utilizes the equipments that were not listed in the directive. In other words, the owner is exempted, and the Frank has no right to demand compensation based on the Directive 2012/374. State liabilities in injuries are a mean that is utilized to take care of the shortcomings of indirect and direct effect (Demirel, 2005). Application of factortame III is implemented in situations where the directives are not well implemented. Factortame III often indicates a far-reaching breach of the law due to an individual being unable to follow the instructions. Francovich is a considered a damages for the laws that are incurred as a consequence of a country’s failure to implement a precise directive and can be applied towards Karem’s case. Question 1 b) European legislation often appears in different forms. Regulation, unlike directive, is often applied and enforced in full. Directives are often employed to all members of the European Union but required implementation to be effected from the set time. National authorities are often required to draw up legislations that are line with the directive (Fasterling, 2005). Regulations are often imposed in full among the member country and is expected to the applied in full after it’s has been passed. Indirect effect is often different from the direct impact on that national laws are often ignored with preference on to directives that emerge from the European Union. Indirect impact often arises when a certain individual the party to the directive is a private entity. Regulation will apply in both situations and both Karem, and Frank will have their rights taken care off given the injuries that they encountered during the different situations at the fuel depot (Hartley, 2005). Regulation, unlike directive, will be enforced without the country paying attention towards it. A regulation will, therefore, cover target all owners without basing the sales or loss (Heine, 2003). For the British individual, the regulation will be in place even without the government’s interventions. Under regulation, the procedure will be in line with the European Union’s laws and the worker will be compensated for the injury they encountered during the handling periods. Direct effect is often considered effective in situations where a country fails to implement a precise directive. The approach often demands that national courts can apply European Union laws at the suits of individual priorities over the conflicting federal legislation. Question 2 Union laws are divided into two categories that include the primary and the secondary law. The major laws entail all the treaties that are the basis of all the European Union actions. Secondary rules are often derived from the objectives, and the principles set out in the treaties that include decisions, directives as well as regulations (Konstadinidis, 2006). Members have a responsibility of ensuring that European Union legislations and agreements are well applied. The commission often takes actions in situations where the member country is suspected of breaching the laws or fails to incorporate European Union directives into state legislation and to inform the Commission of the various measures that have taken. Both the United Kingdom and France are members of the European unions and have subscribed to the various treaties that are associated with removal of the trade barriers among the member states. The customs union exception was created, in part, to put bring together the formation of the European Economic Community. Question 2 European Union has fostered the formation of the customs union among the member the member community as well as reducing the trade barriers that exist among the among the member countries. As a common market, the European Union has gone to a greater extent of harmonizing and coordinating the member state’s tax, agricultural policies as well as industrial policies (Kumar and Fullenkamp, 2005). European Union Treaty, therefore, advocates the removal of trade barriers among the member country and the elimination of the charges on the imports of goods from the other country. France being a member of the union we expect the country to avoid imposing excess taxes towards a company that originates from the member state of the European unions. We hope Mighty Muscle to move and trade freely in the member country’s market in the European community. However, there are numerous trade restrictions in France that is against their move. Some of the laws that tend to prohibit the activity of the company are that all building supplements are expected by the France authorities to be chemical free. The only problems are that despite the business possessing restricted chemicals in their products, other members of the European Union have none of the stated chemicals banned in their country (Mastenbroek, 2003). Moreover, the country has made it illegal for any team that took part in the Olympic to get sponsorship. In addition, the laws state that all goods that are entering the country must be paid for upon importation. Lastly, the law stipulates that all goods which are entering the country should be put in a container and should possess an address in France, where customers can be able to air out, complaints if any (Morasch, 2006). The double fee that are paid by the company offers trade restriction with an intention of making companies from other member states from investing in the country. The approach and the laws set tend to breach the European laws which advocate free trade and removal of commerce restrictions in the member state. The removal of the trade restriction calls for free movement and flow of products and services from one country to the other. The status of the EU laws is a unique one, in that its application often depends on the various separate jurisdictions pertaining to the member states. European Union does not seek a total accepted harmonization which may end up eliminating the state’s authority. However, both the member of States and the European institution have a duty to ensure that European Union law is respected. France has to step the necessary measures after violating the unions’ decisions that targets removal of trade barriers (Muñoz, Oschmann and David Tàbara, 2007). Domestic laws must reconcile with the need to utilize the European laws more efficiently 205/82 to 215/82.The common commercial policy is a stepping stone for the external relations of the European Union member country. It is based on a group of uniform rules under the standard customs tariffs as well as customs union. The purpose of the market access and trade defense in majorly to protect European businesses from various restriction of commerce. The limitation that is being put in place by France should be barred as it prevents free movement of goods and services in Europe (Rogers, 2003). The argument and defenses that can be raised by France will majorly depend on their national law. However, the European Union regulations tend to target almost all the member countries and, therefore, have to be implemented. The European Union has continued to develop during the globalization process by aiming at the harmonious creation of world trade that will foster sustainability and foster fairness. It actively encourages the development of trade and the opening of new markets in other member countries (Salma, 2011). As a result of the behavior of the government of France, there have been continued concerns about the protection. While the European Union can punish a member state for continuing and grave breaches of the rule of law, as well as the values of the European Union’s (article 2 and 7 TEU). There are no means that can be utilized to address several of values that are directly linked to European Union laws and which fall short of the persistent and severe breach. The threshold of punishing a member of the European Union is so high; the unanimity of all the other members is however required before the process could proceed. The new framework tends to offer slightly different results, the Commission in this context tend to identify the rule of law, legal certainty, legality, independent and impartial courts, non–arbitrary exercise of power. As for the process, it focuses on a list of principles such as the member state that is concerned with finding solutions, a goal and through assessment (Steunenberg, 2010). References Cajani, L. 2012. Criminal Laws on History: The Case of the European Union. HISTOREIN, 11(0). Caruso, D. 2006. Limits of the Classic Method: Positive Action in the European Union After the New Equality Directives. SSRN Journal. DANIELSON, L. 2008. European Union Clinical Trials Directives. Acta Ophthalmologica, 86, pp.0-0. Data Protection Laws in the European Union. 2005. Journal of Direct Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 7(1), pp.98-99. Demirel, F. 2005. Classification of Fire Resistance of Building Elements According to European Union Directives and Comparison Between Turkey and Europe. JOURNAL OF POLYTECHNIC, pp.381-395. Fasterling, B. 2005. Best practices and better laws: Corporate governance codes in the member states of the European Union. ERA Forum, 6(3), pp.328-351. Hartley, T. 2005. The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law of Conflict of Laws. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 54(04). Heine, K. 2003. Regulatory competition between company laws in the European Union: The Überseering case. Intereconomics, 38(2), pp.102-108. Konstadinidis, S. 2006. Nationality Laws in the European Union. Edited by Bruno Nascimbene [London: Butterworths. 1996. xv + 771 pp. ISBN 88-14-06139-4. £80]. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 47(01). Kumar, S. and Fullenkamp, J. 2005. Analysis of European Union environmental directives and producer responsibility requirements. IJSS, 1(3), p.379. Mastenbroek, E. 2003. Surviving the Deadline: The Transposition of EU Directives in the Netherlands. European Union Politics, 4(4), pp.371-395. Morasch, M. 2006. Comparative Advertising - A Comparative Study of Trade-mark Laws and Competition Laws in Canada and the European Union. SSRN Journal. Muñoz, M., Oschmann, V. and David Tàbara, J. 2007. Harmonization of renewable electricity feed-in laws in the European Union. Energy Policy, 35(5), pp.3104-3114. Rogers, A. (2003). European Union scrambles to revise drug approval laws. The Lancet, 361(9374), p.2056. Salma, J. (2011). Directives and regulations of the European Union on the protection of the environment. Zb rad Prav fak, Novi Sad, 45(2), pp.29-44. Steunenberg, B. (2010). Is big brother watching? Commission oversight of the national implementation of EU directives. European Union Politics, 11(3), pp.359-380. Read More