Free EU Law Study Guide

Overview

Our free EU Law notes provide a comprehensive guide to understanding the key principles and cases in European Union law. Whether you're studying for exams or simply want to deepen your knowledge, these notes will help you understand concepts such as constitutional limits, fundamental rights, supremacy, direct and indirect effect, free movement of goods, services, people, and more. If you think something could be improved, let us know, and we'll take a look.

1. Constitutional Limits of EU Lawmaking

Competence

• Germany v Parliament and Council (Case C-376/98) [2000] ECR I-8419 - Defined the scope of EU powers when legislating for the internal market.
• Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health (Case C-210/03) [2004] ECR I-11893 - Confirmed EU competence to regulate tobacco products based on internal market objectives.
• Alliance for Natural Health v Secretary of State for Health (Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04) [2005] ECR I-6451 - Clarified the limits of EU competence in regulating food supplements.
• Germany v Parliament and Council (Case C-380/03) [2006] ECR I-11573 - Upheld revised tobacco advertising measures within the EU’s internal market competence.
• Vodafone v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Case C-58/08) [2010] ECR I-4999 - Declared that EU roaming regulation fell within the internal market competence.
• Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v Commission (Case T-526/10), ECLI:EU:T:2013:215 - Addressed EU competence to adopt regulations on seal products.
• Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v Secretary of State for Health (Case C-547/14), ECLI:EU:C:2016:325 - Confirmed EU ability to regulate tobacco packaging under internal market rules.

Proportionality

• Bela-Mühle (Case C-124/76) [1977] ECR 175 - Established that EU measures must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve legitimate objectives.

Subsidiarity

• Germany v Parliament (Case C-233/94) [1997] ECR I-2405 - Highlighted the requirement that EU legislation is adopted only if objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States.
• British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd v Secretary of State for Health (Case C-491/01) [2002] ECR I-11453 - Applied subsidiarity to tobacco controls.
• Philip Morris v Secretary of Health (C-547/14), ECLI:EU:C:2016:325 - Reiterated subsidiarity reviews for EU tobacco legislation.

2. EU Fundamental Rights

General Principles

• Mulder (Case C-120/86) [1988] ECR 2321 - Protected legitimate expectations under EU law.
• Ruckdeschel v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen (Case C-117/76) [1977] ECR 1753 - Established non-discrimination as a key principle.
• Mangold v Helm (Case C-144/04) [2005] ECR I-9981 - Recognized general principles of equality and non-discrimination in EU law.
• Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Case C-427/06) [2008] ECR I-7245 - Extended non-discrimination principles in employment contexts.
• Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA (Case C-13/05) [2006] ECR I-6467 - Clarified protections against discrimination for sickness-related dismissals.
• Audiolux Sàrl v Bloomberg LP (Case C-101/08) [2009] ECR I-9823 - Defined minority shareholder protection in line with general principles of EU law.

Fundamental Rights

• Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Ireland) Ltd v Grogan (Case C-159/90) [1991] ECR I-4685 - Addressed balancing of fundamental rights and free movement within the EU.
• Kadi and Al Barakaat International Fdn. v Council and Commission (Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P) [2008] ECR I-6351, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461 - Affirmed the need for EU measures to respect fundamental rights, even when implementing UN resolutions.
• Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson (Case C-617/10) [2013] ECR I-0000 - Clarified the scope of applying the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in national measures.
• Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and Others v Conseil des ministres (Case C-236/09) [2011] ECR I-773 - Prohibited gender-based discrimination in insurance.
• Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Case C-293/12) [2014] ECR I-0000 - Declared data retention measures invalid for breaching fundamental rights.
• Lidl GmbH v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Case C-134/15), ECLI:EU:C:2016:498 - Examined proportionality of measures affecting corporate freedoms.
• Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas (Case C-64/16), ECLI:EU:C:2018:117 - Linked judicial independence to EU fundamental rights obligations.
• Matthews v United Kingdom (1999) 28 EHRR 361 - Illustrated interplay between EU obligations and ECHR rights.
• Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT (Case C-176/12) [2014] ECR I-0000 - Limited horizontal direct effect of certain Charter provisions.
• Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV v Shimizu (Case C-684/16), ECLI:EU:C:2018:874 - Stressed workers’ right to paid leave under EU law.
• Bauer and Brossonn (Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16), ECLI:EU:C:2018:871 - Affirmed direct effect of EU fundamental social rights on paid leave.
• Commission v Poland (C-619/18) [2019] ECR I-0000, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531 - Safeguarded judicial independence as a fundamental value.

3. Supremacy of EU Law

• Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585 - Confirmed the supremacy of EU law over conflicting domestic law.
• Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (Case C-11/70) [1970] ECR 1125 - Established that EU law prevails over national constitutional norms.
• Simmenthal II (Case C-106/77) [1978] ECR 629 - Required national courts to give immediate effect to EU law.
• Ministero v IN.CO.GE [1998] ECR I-6307 - Reiterated the obligation of courts to set aside conflicting national measures.
• Melki and Abdeli (Joined Cases C-188/10 and C-189/10) [2010] ECR I-5667 - Confirmed priority of EU law in national constitutional review processes.
• Melloni v Ministero della Giustizia (Case C-399/11) [2013] ECR I-0000, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107 - Held that EU law can override higher national standards once competence is exercised.
• Gauweiler v Deutscher Bundestag (Case C-62/14), ECLI:EU:C:2015:400 - Emphasized supremacy in the context of the ECB’s monetary policy.
• Ognyanov (C-614/14), ECLI:EU:C:2016:514 - Addressed national procedures to ensure the full effect of EU law.

4. Direct and Indirect Effect

Direct Effect

• Van Gend en Loos v Belastingen [1963] ECR 1 - Introduced the principle of direct effect, granting individuals enforceable EU rights.
• Defrenne v Sabena, [1976] ECR 455 (ECJ) - Confirmed horizontal direct effect of Treaty provisions on discrimination.
• Poplawski (Case C-573/17), ECLI:EU:C:2019:530 - Clarified conditions for direct effect under the “trigger model.”

Directives

• Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337 - Recognized vertical direct effect of directives under certain conditions.
• Ratti (Case C-148/78) [1979] ECR 1629 - Held that a directive can be invoked after the implementation deadline passes.
• Marshall v S'hampton Health [1986] ECR 723 - Clarified that directives can only have vertical, not horizontal, direct effect.
• F. v British Gas plc (Case C-188/89) [1990] ECR I-3313 - Expanded the concept of “state” to include bodies subject to state authority.
• Farrell v Whitty (C-413/15), ECLI:EU:C:2017:745 - Refined the test for determining an emanation of the state.
• Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl (Case C-91/92) [1994] ECR I-3325 - Reaffirmed the absence of horizontal direct effect for directives.
• Pfeiffer (Joined Cases C-397/01, C-398/01, C-399/01, C-400/01, C-401/01, C-402/01 and C-403/01) [2004] ECR I-8835 - Explained direct effect in the context of working time directives.
• Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG (Case C-555/07) [2010] ECR I-365 - Employed general principles to give quasi-horizontal effect to directives.
• Wells v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Case C-201/02) [2004] ECR I-723 - Highlighted “triangular direct effect,” imposing obligations on individuals via the state’s non-implementation of directives.

Indirect Effect

• Von Colson v Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891 - Obliged national courts to interpret national law consistently with directives.
• Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA (Case C-106/89) [1990] ECR I-4135 - Extended the duty of consistent interpretation even to pre-existing national law.
• Centrosteel v Adipol (Case C-456/98) [2000] ECR I-6007 - Applied consistent interpretation in commercial contexts.
• Pfeiffer (Joined Cases C-397/01, C-398/01, C-399/01, C-400/01, C-401/01, C-402/01 and C-403/01) [2004] ECR I-8835 - Reinforced broad obligations for consistent interpretation.
• Adeneler v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (Case C-212/04) [2006] ECR I-6057 - Clarified temporal limits on the duty of consistent interpretation.
• Impact v Minister for Agriculture and Food (Case C-268/06) [2008] ECR I-2483 - Extended indirect effect in employment disputes.
• Dansk Industri v Estate of Erik Nielsen (Case C-441/14), ECLI:EU:C:2016:278 - Addressed boundaries of interpreting domestic law in line with directives.

Incidental Effect

• CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL (Case C-194/94) [1996] ECR I-2201 - Allowed reliance on directives incidentally to disapply conflicting national rules.
• Unilever Italia SpA v Central Food SpA (Case C-443/98) [2000] ECR I-7535 - Extended incidental effect to ensure protection of EU directive objectives.

5. Free Movement of Goods and Services

Goods

• Dassonville (Case C-8/74) [1974] ECR 837 - Adopted a broad definition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions.
• Cassis de Dijon (Case C-120/78) [1979] ECR 649 - Established mutual recognition and mandatory requirements justifying trade restrictions.
• Keck and Mithouard (Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91) [1993] ECR I-6097 - Distinguished product requirements from certain selling arrangements.
• Åklagaren v Mickelsson & Roos (Case C-142/05) [2009] ECR I-4273 - Confirmed that measures restricting use of products can fall under Article 34 TFEU.
• New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl (Case C-15/15), ECLI:EU:C:2016:465 - Clarified scope of goods-related restrictions affecting the single market.

Justifications

• Eyssen (Case C-53/80) [1981] ECR 409 - Provided public health justifications for restricting free movement of goods.
• Commission v Germany, [1987] ECR 1227 - Upheld certain protective measures when justified by mandatory requirements.
• Commission v Belgium (Case C-2/90) [1992] ECR I-4431 - Allowed environmental grounds for restricting imports of waste.
• Decker v Caisse de Maladie des Employés Privés (Case C-120/95) [1998] ECR I-1831 - Prohibited unjustified restrictions on purchasing goods abroad.

Services

• Van Binsbergen (Case C-33/74) [1974] ECR 1299 - Recognized freedom to provide services and prohibited nationality-based restrictions.
• Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (Case C-55/94) [1995] ECR I-4165 - Addressed services vs. establishment distinctions within the single market.
• Carpenter v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-60/00) [2002] ECR I-6279 - Balanced free movement of services with fundamental rights obligations.

Justifications

• Säger v Dennemeyer & Co Ltd (Case C-76/90) [1991] ECR I-4221 - Affirmed overriding reasons of general interest can justify service restrictions.
• Alpine Investments BV v Minister van Financiën (Case C-384/93) [1995] ECR I-1141 - Allowed restrictions on cross-border provision of financial services when justified by consumer protection.
• Watts v Secretary of State for Health (Case C-372/04) [2006] ECR I-4325 - Addressed reimbursement for medical services abroad and national healthcare budgets.

Free Movement and Fundamental Rights

• Schmidberger v Austria (Case C-112/00) [2003] ECR I-5659 - Allowed balancing of free movement of goods with freedom of expression.
• Karner v Advance Restrukturierungs Marketing GmbH (Case C-71/02) [2004] ECR I-3025 - Permitted restrictions on advertisements for preventing consumer deception.
• Omega Spielhallen GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (Case C-36/02) [2004] ECR I-9609 - Permitted restrictions based on human dignity.
• Viking Line ABP v International Transport Workers' Federation and Finnish Seamen's Union (Case C-438/05) [2007] ECR I-10779 - Balanced fundamental rights to collective action with freedom of establishment.
• Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet (Case C-341/05) [2007] ECR I-11767 - Weighed workers’ right to strike against free movement of services.

6. Free Movement of People

Free Movement of Services (Workers)

• Levin v Staatssecretaris [1982] ECR 1035 - Defined “worker” broadly for free movement purposes.
• Lawrie-Blum (Case C-66/85) [1986] ECR 2121 - Confirmed essential characteristics of an employment relationship under EU law.
• Antonissen v United Kingdom (Case C-292/89) [1991] ECR I-745 - Allowed jobseekers to reside for a certain period to look for work.
• Nadin (Joined Cases C-151/04 and C-152/04) [2005] ECR I-11203 - Clarified the concept of economic activity under free movement rules.
• S and G v Finanzamt Darmstadt (Case C-457/12) [2014] ECR I-0000 - Examined reverse discrimination issues relating to cross-border movement.

Equal Treatment to Social Benefits

• Lebon (C-316/85) [1987] ECR 2811 - Outlined conditions for equal treatment of migrant workers in social benefits.
• Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Case C-138/02) [2004] ECR I-2703 - Examined entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance for EU nationals seeking employment.

Right to Establishment

• Reyners v Belgium [1974] ECR 631 (ECJ) - Prohibited nationality-based discrimination in access to self-employed activities.
• Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (Case C-55/94) [1995] ECR I-4165 - Set out criteria distinguishing establishment from services.
• Schnitzer v Finanzamt [2003] ECR I-14847 (Case C-215/01) - Expanded the scope of establishment rights for professionals.

Mutual Recognition of Qualifications

• Thieffry v Belgium (Case C-71/76) [1977] ECR 765 - Required Member States to recognize equivalent qualifications.
• Vlassopoulou v Ministerium für Justiz (Case C-340/89) [1991] ECR I-2357 - Mandated partial recognition where some complementary training could make up for missing qualifications.
• Fernández de Bobadilla v Museo Prado (Case C-234/97) [1999] ECR I-4773 - Applied mutual recognition principles to cultural sector employment.

Third Country Nationals

• KA v Belgische Staat (C-82/16), ECLI:EU:C:2018:308 - Examined the derivative rights of residence for third-country nationals linked to EU citizens.

7. Effect on National Procedural Rules

General Principles

• Rewe-Zentralfinanz (Case C-33/76) [1976] ECR 1989 - Established principles of equivalence and effectiveness for national procedures.
• Comet BV v Produktschap (C-45/76) [1976] ECR 2043 - Reinforced the need for effective judicial protection of EU rights at national level.

Limitation Periods

• Levez v Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (Case C-326/96) [1998] ECR I-7835 - Held that national time limits must not undermine EU law rights.
• DEB v Germany (Case C-279/09) [2010] ECR I-3849 - Confirmed access to justice requirements for litigants under EU law.
• Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH (Case C-246/09) [2010] ECR I-7003 - Addressed consistent application of EU-based limitation rules.
• Grundig Italiana SpA v Ministero delle Finanze (Case C-255/00) [2002] ECR I-8003 - Balanced national procedural autonomy with protection of EU law objectives.

Res Judicata

• Lucchini v Ministero dell'Industria (Case C-119/05) [2007] ECR I-6199 - Limited application of res judicata where it conflicts with EU law.
• Fallimento Olimiclub Srl v Fondo Interbancario di Tutela dei Depositi (Case C-2/08) [2009] ECR I-7501 - Allowed reopening of final national judgments if required by EU law supremacy.
• Mostaza Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium (Case C-168/05) [2006] ECR I-10421 - Permitted consumer protection arguments to override arbitration awards.
• Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira (Case C-40/08) [2009] ECR I-9579 - Addressed national courts’ duties to review unfair arbitration clauses.

Interim Relief

• Factortame (No. 1) (C-213/89) [1990] ECR I-2433 - Obliged national courts to grant interim relief to safeguard EU law rights.
• Zuckerfabrik (Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89) [1991] ECR I-415 - Permitted interim suspension of EU measures under strict conditions.
• Atlanta v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case C-465/93) [1995] ECR I-3761 - Allowed national courts to grant interim relief subject to certain criteria.

Francovich Liability

• Francovich and Bonifaci v Italian Republic (Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90) [1991] ECR I-5357 - Introduced Member State liability for failure to implement directives.
• Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany and R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No 3) (Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93) [1996] ECR I-1029 - Clarified the conditions for State liability under EU law.
• R v HM Treasury, ex parte British Telecommunications plc (Case C-392/93) [1996] ECR I-1631 - Considered the clarity of a directive as a factor in liability claims.
• Köbler v Austria (Case C-224/01) [2003] ECR I-10239 - Extended liability to breaches by supreme courts.
• Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA v Repubblica Italiana (Case C-173/03) [2006] ECR I-5177 - Confirmed liability for courts’ manifest breaches of EU law.
• Synthon BV v Smithkline Beecham plc (Case C-452/06) [2008] ECR I-7681 - Applied Francovich principles in patent law context.
• Ferreira da Silva e Brito v Estado português (Case C-160/14), ECLI:EU:C:2015:565 - Reiterated the obligation of top courts to refer unclear questions to the CJEU.

Competition Law

• Courage Ltd v Crehan (Case C-453/99) [2001] ECR I-6297 - Allowed private enforcement of EU competition law by individuals seeking damages.

8. Direct Action

Action for Annulment (Article 263 TFEU)

• Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95 - Laid down the “individual concern” test for challenging EU acts.
• Codorníu v Council (Case C-309/89) [1994] ECR I-1853 - Found individual concern for a trademark holder.
• Greenpeace v Commission (T-585/93) [1995] ECR II-2205 - Denied standing to environmental groups absent direct concern.
• Jégo-Quéré v Commission (Cases T-177/01 and C-263/02 P) - Discussed liberalizing rules on direct and individual concern but overturned on appeal.
• Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European Union (Case T-173/98 P) [1999] ECR II-3357 - Early attempt to soften Plaumann but stayed formal.
• Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council (Case C-50/00 P) [2002] ECR I-6677 - Confirmed Plaumann’s strict approach to individual concern.
• R v Secretary of State, ex parte BAT and Imperial Tobacco (Case C-491/01) [2002] ECR I-11453 - Reiterated the need for direct concern.
• Unibet v Justitiekanslern (Case C-432/05) [2007] ECR I-2271 - Discussed indirect challenges to EU measures in national courts.
• European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) and Remote Gambling Association (RGA) v Commission (Case T-238/14), ECLI:EU:T:2016:259 - Applied Plaumann to gambling associations.
• Microban International Ltd v Commission (Case T-262/10) [2011] ECR II-7697 - Treated certain regulatory acts requiring no further measures as directly challengeable.
• Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council (Case T-18/10) - Examined standing under Article 263(4) TFEU.
• Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v European Parliament and Council (Case C-583/11 P), ECLI:EU:C:2013:625 - Clarified concept of “regulatory act” with no implementing measures.

Action for Damages (Article 340 TFEU)

• Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council (Case C-5/71) [1971] ECR 975 - Introduced conditions for non-contractual liability of EU institutions.
• Mulder v Council & Commission [1992] ECR I-3061 - Applied EU liability where legislative measures caused specific harm to individuals.
• Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v Commission (Case C-352/98 P) [2000] ECR I-5291 - Reiterated conditions for EU institution liability, merging Schöppenstedt with Francovich criteria.