PRIMARY LAW: This is a body of law that comes from the principles and objectives

of EU treaties.
These treaty agreements between member states set out the objective’s rules of EU
institutions
Primary law sets out the distribution of competences between the EU and the EU
member states and provides the legal context within which EU law operates
Founding treaties, amending treaties, accession treaties, protocols annexed to those
treaties, supplementary agreements amending specific sections of the founding
treaties, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights

SECONDARY LAW: refers to legal instruments that are based on the primary law.
These instruments are created by the EU institutions to implement the objectives and
principles set out in the primary law
The sources of secondary law in the EU include regulations, directives, decisions,
and agreements

SUPPLEMENTARY LAW: non-written sources of European law that complement the

primary and secondary law.
The supplementary sources include the case-law of the Court of Justice of the
European Union (CJEU), international law, and the general principles of law.
Case-law of the CJEU: The judgments and interpretations of the CJEU contribute to
the development of supplementary law in the EU
International law: International legal principles and agreements form part of the
supplementary sources of EU law
General principles of law: These principles, recognized by EU member states,
contribute to the development and interpretation of EU law
Direct/indirect effect of directives:
C-122/17, David Smith v Patrick Meade and Others
 Direct effect is a principle in EU law that allows individuals to
directly rely on EU law before their national courts.
 This means that if a provision of EU law is clear, precise, and
unconditional, individuals can enforce their rights based on
that provision in their own national courts, without the need for
the State to pass a law to implement it. It's like a shortcut for
people to use EU law to protect their rights in their own country.

 Indirect effect is a legal principle in the EU law that requires

national courts to interpret national law in a way that is
consistent with EU law
This principle applies when national law is unclear or
ambiguous and the national court is required to interpret it
The national court must interpret the national law in a way that
gives effect to the relevant provisions of EU law
The principle of indirect effect is based on the idea that EU law has
primacy over national law

FACTS
The case of David Smith v Patrick Meade and Others is a legal matter
that was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU). The case involved a request for a preliminary ruling from the
Court of Appeal in Ireland regarding the approximation of laws on
insurance against civil liability. The proceedings concerned
compensation for injuries suffered by David Smith as a result of a road
traffic accident. The specific legal issue revolved around the
applicability of a directive in a dispute exclusively between private
persons.
LEGAL ISSUE
The legal issue at the heart of the case David Smith v Patrick Meade
and Others was the interpretation of the applicability of a directive
in a dispute exclusively between private persons.
Specifically, the case raised the question of whether a directive can
be relied upon as such against an individual in a dispute
exclusively between private persons.
Answer:
 The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that a directive
cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and
cannot therefore be relied upon as such against an individual.

 Even a clear, precise, and unconditional provision of a directive

seeking to confer rights on or impose obligations on individuals
cannot of itself apply in a dispute exclusively between private
persons.

 A national court is obliged to set aside a provision of national

law that is contrary to a directive only where that directive is
relied on against a Member State, or organisations or bodies
to perform a task in the public interest and, for that purpose,
possess special powers beyond those which result from the
normal rules applicable to relations between individuals.

 Party adversely affected by the incompatibility of national law

with EU law or a person subrogated to the rights of that party
could however rely on the case-law stemming from the
judgment of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others , in
order to obtain from the Member State, if appropriate,
compensation for any loss sustained.
30.10 (C)
 THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROCEDURAL AUTONOMY OF
MEMBER STATES:
 X V COLLEGE VAN BURGEMEESTER EN WETHOUDERS VAN
DE GEMEENTE PURMEREND

 TONINA ENZA IAIA AND OTHERS V MINISTERO

DELL’ISTRUZIONE, DELL’UNIVERSITÀ E DELLA RICERCA
AND OTHERS

DEFINITION
The principle of procedural autonomy refers to the ability of EU Member
States to establish their own national procedural rules in the absence of
EU law provisions.
This principle allows Member States to design their civil justice systems
according to their own legal traditions and practices, as long as the
effectiveness and equivalence of EU law are upheld. The principle of
procedural autonomy is not a principle of EU law itself, but rather a
principle that allows Member States to exercise their procedural
autonomy within the framework of EU law

X v COLLEGE VAN BURGEMEESTER EN WETHOUDERS VAN DE

GEMEENTE PURMEREND
The question pertains to the interpretation of EU law, specifically the
principle of effectiveness, in relation to a national procedural rule.
The referring court in Case C-120/19 is seeking clarification on whether
EU law, particularly the principle of effectiveness, prohibits a national
procedural rule that requires a person to establish that a requirement
contrary to EU law, imposed by an administrative decision that is legally
unchallengeable, would be unenforceable if implemented by a
subsequent decision.
The specific concern is whether the person must demonstrate that the
requirement clearly could not have been adopted in accordance with EU
law.
The clearness test, as laid down by Netherlands administrative law, is
intended to safeguard the principle of legal certainty.
This means that the enforceability and legality of final decisions may be
called into question only where it is clear that such decisions are
contrary to rules of higher-ranking law, such as rules of EU law.
The clearness test is a requirement that the administrative authority must
conduct a thorough examination, hear interested parties, or seek
additional advice to ensure that the decision is reasonable and in
accordance with the law.
The referring court states that the clearness test, as laid down by
Netherlands administrative law, is intended to safeguard the principle
of legal certainty. This means that the enforceability and legality of
final decisions may be called into question only where it is clear
that such decisions are contrary to rules of higher-ranking law,
such as rules of EU law.

The principle of equivalence requires that national procedural rules

be applied without distinction, whether the infringement alleged is
of EU law or national law, where the purpose and cause of action
are similar.
This means that Member States are not required to extend their most
favorable rules to all employment actions, but they must ensure that the
rule at issue is applied without distinction, whether the infringement
alleged is of EU law or national law, where the purpose and cause of
action are similar.
The principle of effectiveness requires that national procedural rules
do not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to
exercise rights conferred by the EU legal order.
This means that the detailed procedural rules designed to ensure the
protection of the rights which individuals acquire under EU law are a
matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, in accordance
with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States,
provided that they are not less favorable than those governing similar
domestic situations and that they do not make it in practice impossible or
excessively difficult to exercise rights conferred by the EU legal order
Tonina Enza Iaia and Others v Ministero dell’Istruzione,
dell’Università e della Ricerca and Others
 Court is uncertain whether it should respect this national measure
of limitation period
 It is also procedural requirement of the domestic law

FACTS
The case in question involves a reference for a preliminary ruling from a
national court, which asks the Court of Justice of the European Union
whether EU law allows a Member State to invoke the expiry of a
limitation period as a defense against the exercise of a right arising
under a directive or against the enforcement of the right to
compensation for the damage resulting from the failure to transpose the
directive correctly within the prescribed period.
The national court also asks whether this possibility arises only from the
point at which the Court finds that there has been a breach of EU law.
As regards that latter principle, the Court has stated that it is
compatible with EU law to lay down reasonable periods within
which proceedings must be brought in the interests of legal
certainty, which protects both the individual and the authorities
concerned (principle of effectiveness).
Such periods are not by their nature liable to make it virtually
impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred
by EU law, even if the expiry of those periods necessarily entails
the dismissal, in whole or in part, of the action brought.
Therefore, the expiry of a reasonable limitation period is not precluded
under EU law, unless the authority responsible for the delay in the
application deprives the applicant of the opportunity to enforce their EU
law-derived rights before national courts. Additionally, the determination
of a breach of EU law by the Court does not affect the starting point of
the limitation period. This principle is in line with the broader concept of
national procedural autonomy, which allows Member States to designate
the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to establish detailed
procedural rules, provided that they adhere to the principles of
equivalence and effectiveness.
NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY
 Art 340 provides that the Union must make good of damage
caused by its institutions and employees in line with the general
principles common to the laws of the Member States
In other words, the union must be held liable for the damage caused by
its institutions and staff/ employees while performing its duties
 An action for non-contractual liability can be brought by individuals
or Member States who have suffered damage and wish to obtain
compensation

Art 340 does not explicitly state the conditions to which an action for
non-contractual liability may be brought. In general the conditions for
liability are:
1. A qualified illegal action
2. Causal link between the illegal action and the damage caused
3. Quantifiable damage- suffered actual harm- material or non-
material as a result of a qualified illegal action

WHAT CAN THE COURT DO?

 The EU must compensate for damage for which it is responsible
MEMBER STATE LIABILITY
FRANCOVICH CASE
 Member State is liable for damages caused by its failure to
transpose a directive into its national law

 3 conditions must be met:

i. The directive must confer rights on the individual

ii. The rights of the individual must be identifiable in the writing
of the directive
iii. There must be a causal link between the failure to implement
the directive into national law and the damage caused

WHAT SHOULD THE COURTS DO?

 It can confirm that the state has failed to fulfill its obligations, in
which case the state is required to put an immediate end to the
infringement.
 If, after a further action is brought by the Commission, the Court
finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its
judgment, it may impose on it a financial penalty (a fixed lump sum
and/or a periodic penalty payment), the amount being determined
by the Court on the basis of a Commission proposal

STATE LIABILITY FOR AN INFRINGMENT OF AN EU LAW BY A

NATIONAL COURT
A member state must make any good of damage and loss caused to an
individual due to an infringement caused by its national court
 3 conditions must be met:
i. The breached EU law must confer rights on individuals
ii. The breach must be sufficiently serious
iii. There must be a causal link between the breached EU Law
and the damaged caused to the individual
Failure to act actions: Art. 265 TFEU
P-OST, Andrew Clarke v European Commission
P, Anthony Andrew King v European Commission

 Should the European Council, European Parliament, Council, ECB

and the Commission in the infringement of a right fail to act,
Member States and other Institutions of the EU may bring an
action before the CJEU to have that infringement established.

 The action shall only be admissible on the grounds that the

institution in question has been called upon to act. And if within 2
months it has not defined its position, the action may be brought
within a further 2 months.

 In a case where the appellant brings an action and claims that an

institution has failed to due to an argument being addressed, It
may be inadmissible as an action brought against that institution
for inaction as it is up to the court to decide how and whether to
address some arguments.

WHAT CAN THE COURT DO?

 In the context of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the
EU ensures that EU law is applied consistently across the EU and
that EU institutions and member states comply with EU law
  If the Court finds an institution's inaction to be in violation of EU
law, it can take measures such as sanctioning EU institutions,
ruling on actions for annulment, and dealing with requests for
preliminary rulings from national courts

 The specific actions taken by the Court of Justice will depend on

the nature of the inaction and the legal framework involved.

Action for annulment: Art. 263 TFEU

P, Carvalho, and Others v Parliament and Council

 The COJ shall review the legality of the legislative acts of the
Council, the Commission and the Council.

 It shall for this purpose have the jurisdiction and power to hear
cases brought by Member States, the European Parliament, the
Council, or the Commission. These cases can be brought on the
grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential
procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule
of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers.

 The Court of Justice of the European Union has the power to hear
cases brought by Member States, the European Parliament, the
Council, or the Commission. These cases can be brought on the
grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential
procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule
of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers.

 For example, where a natural or legal person alleging or claiming

that another EU Institution has extended its legal authority or
competence in a specific matter or adopted a legal act in the case
 of the commission that falls outside of the scope of it’s prescribed
powers, it may bring an action against before the COJ to challenge
the competence in that particular instance.

 An action for annulment can also be brought against contractual

acts concluded by or on behalf of the EU which expressly give
jurisdiction to the COJ. For example, if the Commission enters into
a contract with an individual and acts outside the scope of its
prescribed powers, an action for annulment can be brought to the
COJ. If the Court finds the action for annulment to be well founded,
it may annul the act in its entirety or certain provisions only, and
the institution, body, office, or organization that adopted the act is
required to fill the resulting legal void

WHO CAN BRING AN ACTION?

 The privileged groups or entities are entitled to bring an
action for annulment without proving any interest:

 EU Member States
 The European Parliament
 The Council
 The Commission

 Non-privileged / unprivileged group, such as private individuals,

can bring an action for annulment before the General Court of
under certain conditions.
 They must establish that they have had an act
addressed to them or that the act was of direct concern
to them.
 This allows EU citizens, companies, and interest groups in
specific circumstances to directly request a judicial review of
EU legal acts

WHEN?
 The proceedings shall be instituted within 2 months of the
publication of the measure, or its notification to the appellant or
on the day on which came known to the appellant.

WHAT CAN THE CJEU DO?

If the case is well-founded, the Court of Justice shall declare the
act in question void in its entirety or certain provisions only.

ART 56-61 OF THE STATUTE

ART 256 TFEU
JUDICIAL REVIEW

 Decisions of the General Court are subject to review by the

Court of Justice only on points of law and this means that the
appeals;
i. Shall lie on grounds of lack of competence of the GC
ii. A breach in a procedure that adversely affect the interest
of the appellants
iii. Infringement of the Union Law by the General Court

 An appeal to the COJ may be brought within 2 months of the

decision appealed against, against the final decisions of the
General Court.
 An appeal can be brought by any party which has been
unsuccessful in whole or in part of its submission
 Interveners other than the EU institutions can only bring such an
appeal provided that they are directly affected by the decision of
the General Court
WHAT WILL THE COURT DO?
 If an appeal is well founded the COJ shall quash the decision
of the General Court and may give the final judgement, or
 May refer the case back to the General Court for judgement
to which the General Court shall be bound by the decision of
the COJ on points of law.

The Court of Justice is the higher court of the CJEU

 It is a supranational court which means that its independence is
beyond doubt.
 It deals with rulings of preliminary requests from national courts,
appeals and certain actions for annulment
 It shall not violate the treaties when interpreting and applying the
treaties.
 It shall solve cases before it
 It shall explain how to understand the law
 It consists of 1 Judge from each Member State
 Assisted by 8 General Advocates who sit on the bench and listen
to both parties. They give their reasoned opinions and legal
solutions on the case before the judges can give their final
decisions. Their number can be increased by the Council
unanimously at the request of the Court of Justice
 They sit in a Grand Chamber of 15 judges replacing preliminary
sessions. They can also sit in the preliminary sessions as stated in
the Statute. Their decision is valid if they are a minimum of 11
judges
 They can also sit in small chambers of 7,5 and 3 Judges
  Judges and General Advocates are appointed for a period of 6
years
 The President of the Court is elected for a term of 3 years
 Advocate Generals are chosen amongst persons whose
independence is beyond doubt.

General Court
 This the lower Court of the CJEU.
 It hears cases at first instances
 Its role is to ensure a uniform interpretation and application of
EU law and to provide a more efficient and accessible judicial
system.
 Comprises of 54 Judges. 2 Judges per Member States because of
high influx of cases
 Decisions of the General court are subject to review by the Court
of Justice on points of law only
 It deals with direct actions brought before the court such as
disputes between individuals, companies, or organizations and EU
institutions as well as actions brought by member states against
the EU
 Judges of the General Court are chosen from persons whose
independence is beyond doubt

 WHAT KIND OF ACTIONS ARE BROUGHT TO THE GC

i. Actions brought by individuals against the actions of EU institutions

ii. Actions brought by M.S against the actions of the EU institutions
iii. Actions in relation to employment of EU institutions and its staff
iv. Actions for damages against EU institutions and Member States

WHAT IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE CJEU AND WHAT ARE THE

PROVISIONS
 The CJEU consists of two courts: the Court of Justice and the
General Court.
 The CJEU interprets EU law to ensure its uniform application
across all EU countries and settles legal disputes between national
governments and EU institutions.

COJ
 The Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction over actions
between the institutions, while the General Court has jurisdiction,
at first instance of direct actions, particularly in actions brought by
individuals and those brought by a Member State against the EU.
The Court of Justice has the jurisdiction to review appeals limited
to points of law in rulings and orders of the General Court. The
appeals do not have suspensive effect, meaning that the original
ruling of the General Court remains in force until the Court of
Justice issues its decision.

GC
 The provisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU) include the jurisdiction of the General Court, which has
jurisdiction to hear at first instance actions referred to in Articles
263, 265, 268, 270, and 272 TFEU

 The provisions also include Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of

Justice, which provides that jurisdiction shall be reserved to
the Court of Justice in the actions referred to in Articles 263
and 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union when they are brought by a Member State against an
act of or failure to act by the European Parliament or the
Council, or by those institutions acting jointly, except for
certain decisions taken by the Council

 The General Court is responsible for dealing with disputes

between individuals, companies, or organizations and EU
institutions, as well as actions brought by member states against
the EU.

The General Court has the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings in

certain areas, but the Court of Justice currently has sole
jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings.
The General Court also has jurisdiction over actions for annulment
brought by individuals, companies, and, in some cases, EU
governments. These actions are brought to the General Court, and
its decisions can be appealed to the Court of Justice, but only on a
point of law