(eBook PDF) Fairhurst's Law of the

European Union 12th Edition

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-fairhursts-law-of-the-european-union-12t
h-edition/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(eBook PDF) Fairhurst's Law of the European Union 12th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-fairhursts-law-of-the-
european-union-12th-edition/

(eBook PDF) European Union Law 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-law-3rd-
edition/

(eBook PDF) Bellamy & Child: European Union Law of

Competition 8th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-bellamy-child-european-
union-law-of-competition-8th-edition/

(eBook PDF) EU Employment Law (Oxford European Union

Law Library) 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-eu-employment-law-
oxford-european-union-law-library-4th-edition/
(eBook PDF) European Union Law (Core Texts Series) 10th
Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-law-core-
texts-series-10th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Politics in the European Union 3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-politics-in-the-
european-union-3rd-edition/

(eBook PDF) Politics in the European Union 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-politics-in-the-
european-union-4th-edition/

(eBook PDF) Policy-Making in the European Union 7th

Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-policy-making-in-the-
european-union-7th-edition/

(eBook PDF) European Union Politics 6th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-european-union-
politics-6th-edition-2/
 FOUNDATIONS SERIES

FAIRHURST, MORANO-FOADI
AND NELLER’S
LAW OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION
Sonia Morano-Foadi
Jen Neller

Thirteenth Edition
 CONTENTS  vii

1.2.11 The Treaty of Lisbon – 1 December 2009 34

1.2.12 The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance – 1 January 2013 34
1.2.13 Enlargement – 1 July 2013 34
1.3 The Treaty of Lisbon 34
1.3.1 The failed Constitutional Treaty 35
1.3.2 Ratification of the ToL 35
1.3.3 Changes introduced by the ToL 37
1.4 Future of the European Union 44
1.4.1 Future enlargements 44
1.4.2 Future contractions 45
1.4.3 Future directions for the Union 47
Chapter summary 49

2 Institutions of the European Union 52

Learning objectives 53
2.1 Introduction to the institutions 54
2.2 The European Council 56
2.2.1 The function of the European Council 56
2.2.2 Composition of the European Council 57
2.2.3 Working procedures of the European Council 58
2.3 The Commission 58
2.3.1 The functions of the Commission 59
2.3.2 Composition of the Commission 61
2.3.3 Working procedures of the Commission 67
2.4 The Council 69
2.4.1 The functions of the Council 69
2.4.2 Composition of the Council 70
2.4.3 Working procedures of the Council 72
2.5 The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy 75
2.5.1 The Role of the High Representative 75
2.5.2 The appointment of the High Representative 76
2.6 The European Parliament 76
2.6.1 The functions of the European Parliament 76
2.6.2 Composition of the Parliament 78
2.6.3 Working procedures and conduct of the Parliament 82
2.7 Court of Justice of the European Union 86
2.7.1 The Court of Justice 87
2.7.2 The General Court 93
2.7.3 Specialised courts 94
2.8 Other institutions 95
2.8.1 Court of Auditors 95
2.8.2 The European Central Bank 95
2.8.3 The European Investment Bank 96
2.8.4 The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) 96
2.8.5 The Committee of the Regions 97
2.8.6 Agencies 98
2.9 Democratic accountability and transparency 98
2.9.1 Democratic accountability 99
2.9.2 Transparency 99
Chapter summary 103
viii  CONTENTS

3 Sources of European Union law (including general principles of law

and fundamental rights) 106
Learning objectives 107
3.1 Introduction to the sources of EU law 108
3.2 The EU Treaties 109
3.2.1 Origins of the Treaties 109
3.2.2 Role of the Treaties 110
3.2.3 Scope of the Treaties 111
3.2.4 Negotiating and amending the Treaties 113
3.3 General principles (including fundamental rights) 116
3.3.1 Administrative procedural principles 116
3.3.2 Fundamental rights 120
3.4 Secondary legislation – regulations, directives and decisions 137
3.4.1 Regulations 138
3.4.2 Directives 138
3.4.3 Decisions 139
3.4.4 Procedures for adopting legislative acts 139
3.4.5 Legal validity and grounds for annulment of legal acts 146
3.5 Decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union 147
3.6 Soft law 147
3.6.1 Recommendations and opinions 148
3.7 International sources of law 148
3.7.1 International treaties negotiated by the Union 148
3.7.2 International treaties negotiated by EU Member States 151
Chapter summary 153

4 Competence and supremacy of the Union 156

Learning objectives 157
4.1 Introduction 158
4.2 Competence of the Union 159
4.2.1 The conferral of competence 159
4.2.2 Types of competence 160
4.2.3 Competence to adopt secondary legislation 164
4.2.4 The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality 167
4.3 The supremacy of EU law 169
4.3.1 Recognition of the supremacy of EU law 169
4.3.2 Challenges to the supremacy of EU law 170
4.4 The incorporation and extrication of Union powers in the UK 176
4.4.1 The European Communities Act 1972 176
4.4.2 Division of competences in Brexit negotiations 178
Chapter summary 180

5 Judicial methodology and preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice 182

Learning objectives 183
5.1 Introduction 184
5.2 Judicial methods of interpretation 184
5.2.1 Precedent 185
5.2.2 Literal interpretation 186
 CONTENTS  ix

5.2.3 Historical interpretation 186

5.2.4 Contextual interpretation 187
5.2.5 Teleological interpretation 187
5.3 Preliminary Rulings under Article 267 189
5.3.1 The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to interpret Union law 189
5.3.2 Discretion or obligation to refer 191
5.3.3 Questions on the interpretation or validity of Union law 194
5.3.4 Questions that are necessary to enable a national court to give a judgment 196
5.3.5 Courts against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under
national law 201
5.4 Special forms of procedure 203
5.4.1 Simplified procedure 203
5.4.2 Accelerated (or expedited) procedure 204
5.4.3 Urgent preliminary ruling procedure 204
Chapter summary 205

6 Review of the legality of Union acts 206

Learning objectives 207
6.1 Introduction 208
6.2 Review of legality of Union acts under Article 263 TFEU 209
6.2.1 Grounds for judicial review 210
6.2.2 Reviewable acts 214
6.2.3 Locus standi (legal standing) 217
6.2.4 Time limits for applications 232
6.2.5 Consequences of annulment 234
6.3 Other procedures 234
6.3.1 Challenging a failure to act under Article 265 TFEU 234
6.3.2 Indirect challenges to a Union act 236
6.4 Damages for unlawful Union acts under Article 340 TFEU 238
6.4.1 Scope of liability 239
6.4.2 Liability for a lawful act 241
6.4.3 Remedies 242
Chapter summary 243

7 Infringement proceedings against Member States 244

Learning objectives 245
7.1 Introduction 246
7.1.1 The obligation on Member States 246
7.1.2 Actions by the Commission under Article 258 TFEU 247
7.1.3 Actions by another Member State under Article 259 TFEU 248
7.2 The stages of Article 258 TFEU proceedings 249
7.2.1 The administrative stage 250
7.2.2 The reasoned opinion 251
7.2.3 The judicial stage 252
7.3 Pecuniary penalties 254
7.3.1 Calculation of payments 255
7.3.2 Collection of payments 260
7.3.3 Article 260(3) TFEU 263
x  CONTENTS

7.4 Interim measures 263

7.4.1 Interim measures ordered by the Court of Justice 264
7.4.2 Interim measures ordered by a national Court 266
7.5 Measures under Article 7 TEU 266
7.5.1 Rule of law in Poland 268
7.5.2 Rule of law in Hungary 269
Chapter summary 270

8 Direct effect, indirect effect and state liability 272

Learning objectives 273
8.1 Introduction 274
8.2 Direct effect 275
8.2.1 The principle of direct effect 275
8.2.2 The scope of direct effect 276
8.2.3 Direct effect of directives 281
8.3 Indirect effect 293
8.3.1 The principle of indirect effect 293
8.3.2 Limitations to the principle of indirect effect 297
8.4 State liability 299
8.4.1 State liability arising from unimplemented directives 299
8.4.2 State liability arising from incorrect implementation 300
8.4.3 Unimplemented directives revisited 303
8.4.4 State liability arising from acts of the executive and the judiciary 304
8.5 The enforcement of EU law in the UK courts 309
8.5.1 Direct effect of EU law in the UK 309
8.5.2 Indirect effect of EU law in the UK 314
Chapter summary 317

Part 2 Substantive areas of EU law 318

9 European Union citizenship and free movement rights 320

Learning objectives 321
9.1 Introduction to the free movement of persons 322
9.1.1 Free movement of persons and non-discrimination 322
9.1.2 EU citizenship 324
9.1.3 Directive 2004/38 325
9.2 Free movement and EU citizenship 325
9.2.1 Scope 325
9.2.2 Rights of entry and residence 336
9.3 Free movement rights of family members of EU citizens 342
9.3.1 Scope 342
9.3.2 Rights of entry and residence 349
9.3.3 Rights of family members in the event of death, departure or divorce 351
9.3.4 Rights to equal treatment 357
9.4 Expulsion and restrictions on free movement rights 358
9.4.1 General protection from expulsion 358
9.4.2 Expulsion on grounds of public policy, public security
or public health 358
 CONTENTS  xi

9.5 Social benefits 363

9.5.1 Equal treatment regardless of nationality 363
9.5.2 Rights of economically inactive EU citizens to social benefits 365
9.5.3 Rights of EU students to social benefits 368
9.6 The Schengen acquis and its integration into the European Union 372
9.6.1 Development of the Schengen area 372
9.6.2 Participation in the Schengen acquis 373
9.6.3 Measures adopted by Schengen group members 375
9.6.4 The Schengen Information System (SIS) 376
9.6.5 Temporary reintroduction of border controls 376
9.7 Free movement rights after Brexit 377
Chapter summary 378

10 Free movement of workers 380

Learning objectives 381
10.1 Introduction to the free movement of workers 382
10.1.1 Primary legislation 382
10.1.2 Secondary legislation 384
10.2 Scope of the term ‘worker’ 385
10.2.1 Definition of a Union worker 385
10.2.2 Retention of worker status after cessation of employment 390
10.3 Rights of workers 393
10.3.1 Rights to free movement 393
10.3.2 Equal treatment in employment 397
10.3.3 Equal access to social advantages 404
10.3.4 Social security coordination 407
10.4 Work-seekers 409
10.4.1 Rights to free movement 410
10.4.2 Rights to social benefits 412
10.5 Family members of workers 418
10.5.1 Definition of a family member 418
10.5.2 Rights to free movement of family members 419
10.5.3 Rights to social benefits for family members 422
Chapter summary 430

11 Freedom of establishment and the free movement of services 432

Learning objectives 433
11.1 Introduction 434
11.1.1 Primary legislation 435
11.1.2 Secondary legislation 436
11.2 Scope of establishment and services 438
11.2.1 Establishment 438
11.2.2 Services 439
11.2.3 The ‘official authority’ exception 443
11.3 Rights of service providers and their employees 444
11.3.1 Rights to establishment and to provide services 444
11.3.2 Rights of entry and residence 450
11.3.3 Rights of posted workers 453
11.3.4 Permissible restrictions on the rights of providers 458
xii  CONTENTS

11.4 Recipients of services 476

11.4.1 Rights of recipients under the Treaties 476
11.4.2 Rights of recipients to residence 477
11.4.3 Rights of recipients under Directive 2006/123 478
11.4.4 Rights of recipients to social advantages 479
11.4.5 Permissible restrictions on the rights of recipients 481
11.5 Recognition of professional qualifications 486
11.5.1 Treaty provisions 486
11.5.2 Directive 2005/36: the recognition of professional qualifications 492
11.5.3 Non-EU qualifications 499
11.5.4 The internal situation 503
Chapter summary 505

12 Free movement of goods 508

Learning objectives 509
12.1 Introduction to the free movement of goods 510
12.1.1 Primary legislation 511
12.2 Customs duties and charges having equivalent effect (Arts 28–30 TFEU) 513
12.2.1 The customs union 513
12.2.2 Scope of the term ‘goods’ 514
12.2.3 Duties and charges having equivalent effect (CEEs) 516
12.2.4 Charges for the provision of a service 519
12.2.5 Customs duty or internal taxation? 523
12.3 Internal taxation (Art 110 TFEU) 524
12.3.1 Similar products (Art 110(1) TFEU) 526
12.3.2 Indirect protection (Art 110(2) TFEU) 530
12.4 Quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect
(Arts 34 and 35 TFEU) 535
12.4.1 Quantitative restrictions 535
12.4.2 Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions (MEEs) 539
12.4.3 Distinctly applicable MEEs 541
12.4.4 Indistinctly applicable MEEs: dual-burden rules 545
12.4.5 Indistinctly applicable MEEs: equal-burden rules 554
12.4.6 Quantitative restrictions and MEEs on exports (Art 35 TFEU) 560
12.5 Permissible quantitative restrictions and MEEs 561
12.5.1 Justifications under Article 36 TFEU 561
12.5.2 The Cassis rule of reason defences for indistinctly applicable measures 572
12.5.3 Derogations from harmonising legislation (Art 114 TFEU) 583
12.6 Free movement of goods after Brexit 584
12.6.1 Models of EU trade arrangements with non-EU countries 585
12.6.2 Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement 586
Chapter summary 587

Glossary 590
Further reading 606
Index 622
Preface for educators

Dear educator,
We are excited to present the thirteenth edition of Law of the European Union. This is the
second time we have updated this popular textbook, which was originally authored by Pro-
fessor John Fairhurst, and we have continued to pursue an accessible but thorough approach
throughout. We have worked to build on and improve the innovative features that we intro-
duced in the last edition, including the addition of new reflection boxes to provide further
consideration of interesting or difficult issues. Other features that facilitate accessibility and
easy navigation of the material include: a brief glossary at the beginning of each chapter;
learning objectives that correspond with chapter headings; the division of case boxes into
‘facts’, ‘ruling’ and ‘significance’; diagrams to illustrate procedures or conditionality; and
chapter summaries.
This edition is now also available as an ebook, which includes deep links to legal materials
and self-assessment questions.
The book is divided into two main parts. Part 1 (chapters 1–8) covers the constitutional
and administrative law of the European Union. Part 2 then delves into the substantive law of
the European Union, with chapters 9–12 examining EU citizenship and the free movement
of workers, services and goods.
For Chapter 1, we begin with an overview of the European Union as it currently exists,
before then setting out the story of its creation and development. The rationale here is that
students will be better able to understand the significance of the history of the Union if they
first understand what it is a history of. Brexit is considered both in the opening ‘current’
section, where information on membership of the Union includes the procedures set out in
the Treaties for both accession and withdrawal, and in the final section of the chapter, which
considers the future of the Union. All information on Brexit is correct as of 1 February 2020.
Chapter 2 then sets out the institutions of the EU, with information provided on their
functions, composition and working procedures in turn, and with new material added on
comitology and EU agencies. This provides students with a firm understanding of the actors
that variously produce and are bound by the sources of EU law, which are examined in Chap-
ter 3. This chapter includes information on the legislative procedures for enacting sources
of EU law and fundamental rights. The last section of Chapter 3, which covers agreements
made between the Union external entities, also includes brief mentions of Brexit in relation
to withdrawal agreements and association agreements.
Chapter 4 then moves deeper into questions regarding the nature of EU law with an exam-
ination of the competences and supremacy of the Union. This chapter includes questions
relating to the division of competences in the Brexit negotiations.
Chapters 5, 6 and 7 are focused on the functions of the Court of Justice of the European
Union. These are preliminary rulings, judicial review of the validity of EU law and infringe-
ment proceedings against Member States, respectively. Chapter 5 also includes a section on
the judicial methodology of the Court of Justice. New material has been added to Chapter 6
to further clarify the scope of a regulatory act under Article 263 TFEU. A new section has
been added to Chapter 7 providing information and analysis on Article 7 TEU (concerning
xiv  PREFACE FOR EDUCATORS

enforcement of respect for Union values), which was first invoked against Poland in 2017
and Hungary in 2018.
Chapter 8 concludes Part 1 of the book with analysis of the principles of direct effect, indi-
rect effect and state liability. While the history of the direct effect of EU law in the UK has
been retained, brief comments are now also included on the future effect of EU law in the UK.
Part 2 on substantive areas of EU law begins with Chapter 9 on EU citizenship. This
chapter now includes discussion of the controversial Tjebbes ruling of March 2019 on the
withdrawal of EU citizenship. A new section has been added outlining freedom of movement
after Brexit. Chapter 10 then examines the free movement of workers and includes a section
on post-Brexit possibilities in this area. Chapter 11 on the free movement of services and
the right to establishment includes analysis of new updates to the Posted Workers Directive.
In Chapter 12 on the free movement of goods, we now take a less cautious approach to the
Court of Justice’s abandonment of the Keck formula in favour of the market access test.
Again, a new section has been added to the end of the chapter to discuss the free movement
of goods after Brexit.
For the most part, we have endeavoured to state the law as at 1 January 2020. However,
information on Brexit has been updated so that it is correct as of 1 February 2020. This
means that the UK is not counted as a current Member State of the European Union and it
is assumed that the transition period will cease on 31 December 2020. Updates to the book
are available online at go.pearson.com/uk/legalupdates.
We sincerely hope that this book will assist you in the delivery of your EU law module
and that it will prove helpful to your students. We would be delighted to hear any feedback
that could assist us with future editions.

Warmest regards,
Sonia Morano-Foadi and Jen Neller
Preface for students

Dear student,
Welcome to the thirteenth edition of Law of the European Union. We are delighted that this
book has found its way into your hands. Before you get stuck in, we would like to take a
moment to explain a few things about EU law and about this book that we think you might
find helpful.

Brexit
At the time of writing, the UK is not a member of the European Union. This edition has
been written after ‘exit day’ (31 January 2020), but before the transition period is due to
end (31 December 2020). This means that the UK is not counted as a Member State of the
European Union throughout this print edition, but that the future relationship between the
UK and the EU has not yet been established. Therefore, while this book includes as much
information on Brexit as possible, it is inevitable that further developments will have occurred
between finalising this text and the time that you are reading it. Sections on Brexit have been
written with this in mind and updates to the book are available at go.pearson.com/uk/
legalupdates.
It is worth noting that ‘Brexit’ is a vague term. The phrase ‘after Brexit’ has been used
variously in the media to refer to after the 2016 referendum, after the triggering of Article
50 TEU in March 2017, after ‘exit day’ on 31 January 2020 or after the end of the Brexit
transition period on 31 December 2020. What is meant by ‘after Brexit’ therefore depends
on the context and whether it is the political, institutional or legal situation that is being
referred to.

Why study EU law?

If the UK is leaving the EU, then why should UK students continue to study EU law? While
each law school or department is likely to have different ideas about this, we suggest three
broad reasons.
1 EU law has had a profound effect on UK law that will not be erased by Brexit. The UK
was a member of the EU for 47 years. Throughout the whole of that time, the UK Par-
liament enacted reams of legislation in order to transpose particular requirements of EU
law into domestic legislation. Furthermore, UK policies, court judgments and practices
across a wide range of policy areas have been required to conform to EU law. EU law is
thus deeply embedded within UK law and practice and forms a core chapter within UK
legal history, the impact of which will be relevant for decades to come.
2 With respect to the Brexit process and the future of UK law, an understanding of EU law
has rarely ever been in such high demand. While it is initially expected that, for the most
part, all EU law that has an effect in the UK will be automatically transposed into UK
legislation, there will be some degree of opportunity, sooner or later, for such legislation
to be reassessed. In areas of law that have been heavily affected by EU legislation, such as
workers’ rights and product standards, there is the potential for significant changes to be
up for negotiation. UK lawyers who understand the impact of the EU legacy will be best
xvi  PREFACE FOR STUDENTS

placed to help reshape UK law. Additionally, regardless of whether Brexit is ‘hard’ or ‘soft’,
any kind of future engagement with the European Single Market will require knowledge
of this entity and its rules.
3 From a constitutional perspective, the European Union is a unique legal entity. There is
no other international system that compares to it. Although other regional organisations
have sought to emulate its successes, they have yet to establish the means of producing
effective and enforceable controls and genuine integration to the extent that the EU has
achieved. The study of EU law is thus the study of regional politics, international diplomacy
and the constant negotiation of interests at all levels. The EU may therefore be deemed to
be of considerable intellectual interest regardless of the UK’s relationship with it.

A couple of things you should know about EU law

As it is a unique legal entity, there are a couple of things that it would be helpful to note
before your module begins. Attention to these details early on could give you a head start
and help you to avoid common mistakes and confusion further down the line.
First, it is important to note the difference between the Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJEU or sometimes ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
The former is an institution of the European Union, which sits in Luxembourg and rules on
cases pertaining to EU law. The latter is an institution of the Council of Europe, which sits
in Strasbourg and rules on cases pertaining to the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR). The two courts are often confused with each other, especially when vague refer-
ences are made in the media to ‘the European Court’, but it is important to understand that
the Council of Europe is an entirely separate organisation to the European Union.
Secondly, it will be helpful to be aware that the Treaties of the European Union have been
renamed and renumbered several times throughout the history of the EU. Since 2009, the
primary Treaties have been called the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It is from these two Treaties that all
the powers of the EU institutions are derived. Prior to 2009, the TFEU was known as the
Treaty on the European Communities (EC Treaty) and before that it was the Treaty on the
European Economic Communities (EEC Treaty). The TEU has never been renamed, but
both treaties have been renumbered. This means that the articles within them have moved
around. For example, the article on the free movement of workers is currently Article 45
TFEU, but it was previously Article 39 EC Treaty, and before that it was Article 48 EEC
Treaty. Don’t panic – you will not need to remember all of these outdated article numbers!
However, if you are reading older cases, books or journal articles, you should be aware that
the Treaty articles that they refer to may now have a different number. The link provided
on page lxvi directs you to a table where you can see equivalent pre- and post-2009 article
numbers.

About this book

This book is divided into two main sections: Part 1 on the constitutional and administrative
law of the EU (Chapters 1–8) and Part 2 on substantive EU law (Chapters 9–12). There are
a number of useful features included within each chapter that we would like to draw to your
attention.
Each chapter begins with a list of objectives, which are designed to help you to navigate
the chapter and to keep track of your progress. The objectives are followed by key terms and
concepts, which provide you with a head start on understanding some of the specific termi-
nology of the topic and which can be referred back to as required. Then, at the end of each
 PREFACE FOR STUDENTS   xvii

chapter, we have provided a brief summary, enabling you to rapidly revise the main points
of the chapter and to identify any gaps in your knowledge. At the end of the book you can
find a list of references and further reading, which sets out books and journal articles that
you may find helpful for expanding your understanding of the complexities, controversies
and uncertainties of the topic.
Within the main body of the chapters you will find legislative excerpts, which provide the
exact wording of relevant legislation, case boxes, which set out the facts, ruling and signif-
icance of important cases, and reflection boxes, which draw attention to key issues. Where
cases or issues are also mentioned elsewhere in the book, cross-references are provided in
the margins. These features are designed to help you to navigate the law with relative ease
and to help you to draw connections between the different topics. A variety of diagrams have
also been provided throughout the book to complement the main text and reinforce your
understanding of the topic. However, it should be noted that your greatest asset, as with all
modules, will be the notes that you take. The features in this book are designed to support,
but never to replace, your own notes and revision materials.
We sincerely hope that this book will help you to ace your EU law module and we would
be delighted to hear any feedback that could assist us with future editions.

Best of luck and warmest regards,

Sonia Morano-Foadi and Jen Neller
Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Victoria Tubb of Pearson Education for providing us with
the opportunity to work on this book and for supporting us throughout the process. We
would also like to thank Akanksha Marwah, Vinay Agnihotri and Jennifer Mair for their
work in bringing this book to completion. It has been a pleasure to work with you all.
Special thanks are due to Dr Alina Tryfonidou, Dr Oxana Golynker and Professor Stephen
Wetherill for their valuable comments on previous draft chapters of this book.
Sonia Morano-Foadi would like to thank her husband James, her daughters Sophie and
Nadine, her parents, zia Nella e zio Vincenzo, and her brother for their constant love and
support. Sonia dedicates the book to all of them.
Jen Neller would like to thank Professor Leslie J Moran for his patience and encourage-
ment during the interlude in her PhD studies that this book represents. Her work is dedicated
to David Neller for always believing in her.

Publisher’s acknowledgements
13 European Union: Article 50 Treaty on European Union © European Union: Withdrawal
of a Member State from the EU, 2016 © European Union; 41 European Union: Article 12
Treaty on European Union © European Union; 170 European Court of Justice: Costa v
ENEL (Case 64/4); 185 Weekly Law Reports: English Court of Appeal, in Bulmer v Bollinger
[1974] 3 WLR 202; 192 European Court of Justice: Broekmeulen v Huisarts Registratie
Commissie (Case 246/80); 209 European Union: Article 263 Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union © European Union; 240 European Court of Justice: Bergaderm
and Goupil v Commission (Case C-352/98P); 254 European Union: Article 260 Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union © European Union; 257 European Court
of Justice: Commission v Greece (Case C-387/97); 309–310 European Court of Jus-
tice: Macarthys Ltd v Smith [1979] ICR 785 and [1981] QB 180; 313 European Court
of Justice: Schiemann LJ National Union of Teachers and Others v The Governing Body
of St Mary’s Church of England (Aided) Junior School and Others [1997] IRLR 242; 314
­European Court of Justice: Lord Templeman in Foster v British Gas Plc (No 2) [1991]
2 AC 306; 314 European Court of Justice: Duke v Reliance Systems Ltd [1988] AC 618;
315 House of Commons: Litster v Forth Dry Dock [1989] 2 WLR 634 © Parliamentary
Copyright; 324 European Union: Article 20(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union © European Union; 327–328 European Court of Justice: Rottmann v Bayern (Case
C-135/08); 334–335 European Court of Justice: Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for
the Home Department (Case C-165/16); 354 European Court of Justice: Diatta v Land
Berlin (Case 267/83); 387 European Court of Justice: Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justi-
tie (Case 53/81); 410 European Court of Justice: R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex
parte Antonissen (Case C-292/89); 414 European Court of Justice: Brian Francis Collins
v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Case C-138/02); 420 European Court of Jus-
tice: Kaba v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-356/98); 424 European
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  xix

Court of Justice: Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case
C-413/99); 445–446, 458–459 European Court of Justice: Van Binsbergen v Bestuur
van de Bedrijfsvereninging voor de Metaalnijverheid (Case 33/74); 468 European Court
of Justice: Qestore di Verona v Zenatti (Case C-67/98); 475–476 European Court of Jus-
tice: Harmsen v Burgemeester van Amsterdam (Case C-341/14); 477 European Court of
Justice: Luisi and Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro (Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83); 489
European Court of Justice: UNECTEF v Heylens (Case 222/86); 490–491 European
Court of Justice: Vlassopoulou vMinisterium für Justiz, Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten
Baden-Württemberg (Case C-340/89); 501–502 European Court of Justice: Hocsman v
Ministre de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité (Case C-238/98); 517 European Court of Justice:
Commission v Italy (Case 24/68); 529 European Court of Justice: Commission v Greece
(Case C-132/88); 549 European Court of Justice: Commission v France (Case 21/84);
555 European Court of Justice: Keck and Mithouard (Joined Cases C-267 and 268/91);
568 European Court of Justice: Commission v Germany (Case 178/84); 571 European
Court of Justice: Centrafarm v Winthrop BV (Case 15/74); 576–577 European Court of
Justice: Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1980 – Criminal proceedings against Anton
Adriaan Fietje (Case 27/80); 579 European Court of Justice: Commission v Austria (Case
C-320/03); 583 European Union: Article 114 Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union © European Union.
Table of cases before the Court
of Justice of the European
Union (numerical)

6/54 Netherlands v High Authority [1954–56] ECR 103 24/68 Commission v Italy [1969] ECR 193, [1971]
212 CMLR 611 518, 520
6/56, 7/56, 3/57 to 7/57 Algera and Others v 2, 3/69 Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v SA Ch.
­Common Assembly [1957–58] ECR 139 243 Brachfeld & Sons [1969] ECR 211, [1969] CMLR
7/61 Commission v Italy [1961] ECR 317, [1962] 335 518
CMLR 39 252 4/69 Alfons Lütticke GmbH v Commission [1969] ECR
2/62, 3/62 Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium 325 239
(Joined Cases) [1962] ECR 855 187, 516–517 7/69 Commission v Italy [1970] ECR 111, [1970]
24/62 Commission v Germany (Re Brennwein) [1963] CMLR 97 252–253
ECR 63, [1963] CMLR 347 252 14/69 Markus v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1969]
25/62 Plaumann & Co v Commission [1963] ECR 95, ECR 349 186
[1964] CMLR 29 223–227, 231, 237, 243 29/69 Stauder v City of Ulm [1969] ECR 419, [1969]
26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der CMLR 112 120
Belastingen [1963] ECR 1, [1963] CMLR 182 169, 31/69 Commission v Italy [1970] ECR 25 251
275–279, 292, 294, 512, 593, 597, 605 77/69 Commission v Belgium [1969] ECR 237, [1974] 1
28/62–30/62 Da Costa en Schaake NV, Jacob Meijer CMLR 203 253–254
NV, Hoechst-Holland NV v Nederlandse Belastingad- 9/70 Grad (Franz) v Finanzamt Traunstein [1970] ECR
ministratie [1963] ECR 31, [1963] CMLR 224 198 975 280–283
12/63 Schlieker née Diepenbruck) v High Authority of the 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft GmbH [1970]
ECSC [1963] ECR 85, [1963] CMLR 281 87 ECR 1125, [1972] CMLR 255 117, 121, 171–173,
75/63 Hoekstra (née Unger) v Bestuur der Bedrijfsverenig- 180
ing voor Detailhandel en Ambachten [1964] ECR 177, 15/70 Chevally v Commission [1970] ECR 975 236
[1964] CMLR 319 385 22/70 Commission v Council [1970] ECR 263, [1971]
106/63, 107/63 Alfred Toepfer and Getreide-Import CMLR 335 186, 214
­Gesellschaft v Commission [1965] ECR 405 224–225 41/70–44/70 International Fruit Company BV v Com-
6/64 Flaminio Costa v Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elet- mission [1975] ECR 1393 221, 225
trica (ENEL) [1964] ECR 585, [1964] CMLR 425 5/71 Zückerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council [1971] ECR
14–15, 49, 171, 176, 180, 184, 201 975 239
56/64, 58/64 Consten and Grundig GmbH v Commis- 7/71 Commission v France [1971] ECR 1003, [1972]
sion (joined cases) [1966] ECR 299, [1966] CMLR CMLR 453 250, 252
418 569 43/71 Politi SAS v Italian Ministry of Finance [1971]
32/65 Italy v Commission [1966] ECR 389, [1969] EU:C:1971:122 280
CMLR 39 236 51/71–54/71 International Fruit Company v Pro-
57/65 Alfons Lütticke (Firma) GmbH v Hauptzollamt duktschap voor Grotenten en Fruit (No. 2) [1971] ECR
Sarrelouis [1966] ECR 205 512, 525, 527 1107 541
24/67 Parke, Davis and Co v Probel, Reese, Beintema-In- 21/72–24/72 International Fruit Co NV v Produktschap
terpharm and Centrafarm [1968] EU:C:1968:11 569 voor Groenren en Fruit (No. 3) [1972] ECR 1219,
27/67 Fink-Frucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt [1975] 2 CMLR 1 149
Munchen-Landsbergerstrasse [1968] ECR 223, [1968] 29/72 Marimex SpA v Italian Finance Administration
CMLR 445 535 [1972] ECR 1309, [1973] CMLR 486 523
7/68 Commission v Italy (Re Export Tax on Art Treasures 48/72 Brasserie de Haecht SA v Wilkin (No. 2) [1973]
No 1) (Italian Art Case) [1968] ECR 423, [1969] ECR 77, [1973] CMLR 287 279
CMLR 1 514, 515, 518
 TABLE OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (NUMERICAL)   xxi

76/72 Michel S v Fonds national de reclassement social des 87/75 87~75 Bresciani (Conceria Daniele) v Ammin-
handicaps [1973] ECR 457 405 istrazione Italiana delle Finanze [1976] ECR 129,
77/72 Capolongo v Azienda Agricola [1973] ECR 611, [1976] 2 CMLR 62 v Amministrazione Italiana delle
[1974] 1 CMLR 230 523 Finanze [1976] ECR 129, [1976] 2 CMLR 62 521
2/73 Geddo (Riseria Luigi) v Ente Nazionale Risi [1973] 104/75 Officier van Justitie v De Peijper [1976] ECR
ECR 865, [1974] 1 CMLR 13 535–536, 602 613, [1976] 2 CMLR 271 566
4/73 J Nold KG v Commission [1974] ECR 491, [1974] 105/75 Giuffrida v Council [1976] ECR 1395 212
2 CMLR 338 121, 131 113/75 Frecasseti v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
34/73 Fratelli Variola SpA v Amministrazione Italiana Stato [1976] ECR 983 195
delle Finanze [1973] ECR 981 280 127/75 Bobie Getränkvertrieb v Hauptzollamt Aachen-
152/73 Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost [1974] ECR 153 Nord [1976] ECR 1079 527
401, 403 169/73 Compagnie Continentale v Council [1975]
167/73 Commission v France (Re French Merchant ECLI:EU:1975:13 118, 599
Seamen) [1974] ECR 359, [1974] CMLR 216 251, 1/76 Opinion of the Court of 26 April 1977 [1977]
254, 323, 397 ECR 741 163
175/73 Union Syndicale v Council [1974] ECR 917, 5/77 Tedeschi v Denkavit Commerciale srl [1977] ECR
[1975] 1 CMLR 131 130 1555 561–562
2/74 Reyners v Belgian State [1974] ECR 631, [1974] 2 13/76 Donà v Mantero [1976] ECR 1333 279, 393
CMLR 305 278, 439, 443–446, 487 46/76 Bauhuis v Netherlands [1977] ECR 5 521, 522
8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, 53/76 Procureur de la République Besancon v Bouhelier
[1974] 2 CMLR 436 540, 541, 542, 546, 548, [1977] ECR 197, [1977] 1 CMLR 436 560
559, 560, 587, 599 63/76 Inzirillo v Caisse d’Allocations Familiales de l’Aron-
9/74 Casagrande v Landesshauptstadt München [1974] dissement de Lyon [1976] ECR 2057, [1978] 3 CMLR
ECR 773, [1974] 2 CMLR 423 423 596 422
12/74 Commission v Germany [1975] ECR 181, [1975] 64/76 Dumortier Frères v Council [1976] ECR 3091,
1 CMLR 340 543 [1982] ECR 1733 243
15/74, 16/74 Centrafarm BV v Adriaan de Peiper 71/76 Thieffry v Conseil de l’Ordre des Avocats à la Cour
Winthrop BV (Sterling Drug Case) [1974] ECR 1147, de Paris [1977] ECR 765, [1977] 2 CMLR 373 279,
[1974] 2 CMLR 480 570–571 487–488, 489, 501, 506
33/74 Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging 77/76 Fratelli Cucchi v Avez SpA [1977] ECR 987 523
voor de Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 1299, [1975] 1 78/76 Steinike und Weinlig [1977] ECR 595 519, 587
CMLR 298 440, 445–446, 458–459 89/76 Commission v Netherlands (plant inspections)
36/74 Walrave and Koch v Association Union Cycliste [1977] ECR 1355 521, 522, 587
Internationale [1974] ECR 1405, [1975] 1 CMLR 107/76 Hoffman La Roche v Centrafarm [1977] ECR
320 279 597, [1977] 2 CMLR 334 191
41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337, 7/78 R v Thompson [1978] 1 CMLR 47, [1980] QB
[1975] 1 CMLR 1, [1975] Ch 358, [1975] 3 All ER 229, [1980] 2 All ER 102 564
190 251, 283–284, 359 11/77 Patrick v Ministre des Affaires Culturelles [1977]
94/74 IGAV v ENCC [1975] ECR 699, [1976] 2 ECR 1199 488, 489
CMLR 37 523 30/77 R v Bouchereau [1977] ECR 1999, [1977] 2
166/73 Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf (‘Rheinmühlen I’) CMLR 800 359, 484
[1974] ECLI:EU:C:1974:3 191 61/77R Commission v Ireland [1977] ECR 937, [1977]
4/75 Rewe-Zentralfinanz v Landwirtschaft-skammer ECR 1411 264
[1975] ECR 843, [1977] 1 All ER 599 541 70/77 Simmenthal v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
5/75 Deuka [1975] ECR 759 118 Stato [1978] 3 CMLR 670 197
7/75 Mr and Mrs F v Belgian State [1975] ECR 679, 82/77 Openbaar Ministerie of the Netherlands v Van Tig-
[1975] 2 CMLR 382 gele [1978] ECR 25, [1978] 2 CMLR 528 550
32/75 Fiorinin (née Cristini) v SNCF [1975] ECR 1085, 83/77 HNL v Council and Commission [1978] ECR
[1976] 1 CMLR 573 405, 423 1209, [1978] 3 CMLR 566 239
36/75 Rutili v Ministère de l’Intérieur [1975] ECR 87/77, 130/77, 22/83, 9/84, 10/84 Salerno and Oth-
1219, [1975] 1 CMLR 573 130, 400 ers v Commission and Council (Joined Cases) [1985]
43/75 Defrenne v SABENA (No. 2) [1976] ECR 455, ECR 2523 237
[1976] 2 CMLR 98 279, 281 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Sim-
45/75 Rewe-Zentrale des Lebensmittel-Grosshandels Gmbh menthal SpA [1978] ECR 629 173–174, 180
v Hauptzollamt Emmerich [1976] ECR 181 526 148/77 Hansen Jun & O. C. Balle GmbH & Co. v
48/75 Procureur du Roi v Royer [1976] ECR 497, Hauptzollamt Flensburg [1978] ECR 1787, [1979] 1
[1976] 2 CMLR 619 188, 410 CMLR 604 526, 530
xxii  TABLE OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (NUMERICAL)

92/78 Simmenthal [1979] ECR 777 237 788/79 Italian State v Gilli and Andres [1980] ECR
115/78 Knoors v Secretary of State for Economic Affairs 2071, [1981] 1 CMLR 146 573
[1979] ECR 399, [1979] 2 CMLR 357 504 789/79, 790/79 Calpak SpA and Societa Emiliana
120/78 Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung Lavorazione Frutta SpA v Commission [1980] ECR
für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) [1979] ECR 649, 1649 226
[1979] 3 CMLR 494 545–546, 552, 554, 555, 556, 27/80 Fietje [1980] ECR 3839, [1981] 3 CMLR 722
572–573, 574, 578, 581, 599, 602 576–577
128/78 Commission v United Kingdom (Re Tachographs) 36/80 Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association v Ireland
[1979] ECR 419, [1979] 2 CMLR 45 254 [1981] ECR 735, [1981] 2 CMLR 455 197
136/78 Ministère Public v Auer [1979] ECR 437, 58/80 Dansk Supermarket A/S v A/S Imerco [1981]
[1070] 2 CMLR 373 504 ECR 181 279
141/78 France v United Kingdom [1979] ECR 2923, 66/80 International Chemical Corporation [1981] ECR
[1980] 1 CMLR 6 248 1191 198–199
148/78 Pubblico Ministero v Ratti [1979] ECR 1629, 113/80 Commission v Ireland (Re Restrictions on Im-
[1980] 1 CMLR 96 292 portation of Souvenirs) [1981] ECR 1625, [1982] 1
153/78 Commission v Germany [1979] ECR 2555 566 CMLR 706 543–544, 562
168/78 Commission v France (Re French Taxation of 155/80 Oebel [1981] ECR 1993, [1983] 1 CMLR 390 554
Spirit) [1980] ECR 347, [1981] 2 CMLR 631 525, 193/80 Commission v Italy [1981] ECR 3019 575
526, 533–534 244/80 Foglia v Novello (No. 2) [1981] ECR 3045,
170/78 Commission v United Kingdom (Re Excise Duties [1982] 1 CMLR 585 197–198
on Wines) (No. 2) [1983] ECR 2263, [1983] 3 CMLR 246/80 Broekmeulen v Huisarts Registratie Commissie
512 531–532, 575 [1981] ECR 2311 195
171/78 Commission v Denmark [1980] ECR 447, 272/80 Frans-Nederlandse [1981] ECR 3277, [1982] 2
[1981] 2 CMLR 688 525 CMLR 497 566
207/78 Ministère Public v Even and ONPTS [1979] ECR 279/80 Criminal Proceedings against Webb [1981] ECR
2019, [1980] 2 CMLR 71 405–406 3305, [1982] 1 CMLR 719 449
232/78 Commission v France (Re Sheepmeat) [1979] 8/81 Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt [1982]
ECR 2729, [1980] 1 CMLR 418 264 ECR 53, [1982] 1 CMLR 499 284
237/78 Caisse Régionale d’Assurance Maldie de Lil- 14/81 Alpha Steel v Commission [1982] ECR 749 135
le v ­Palermo [1979] ECR 2645, [1980] 2 CMLR 53/81 Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1982] ECR
31 364 1035, [1982] 2 CMLR 454 385, 387–388, 430, 596
15/79 PB Groenveld BV v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639, [1981] 3
[1979] ECR 3409, [1981] 1 CMLR 207 560 CMLR 635 214
33/79 Kuhner v Commission [1980] ECR 1671 119 70/81 Kloppenburg [1984] ECR 1075 118, 599
34/79 R v Henn and Darby [1979] ECR 3795, [1980] 102/81 Nordsee Deutsche Hochsee fischerei GmbH v
1 CMLR 246, [1981] AC 850, [1980] 2 All ER 166 Reederei Mond Hochsee fischerei AG [1982] ECR 1095
536, 562–563 191–192
37/79 Marty SA v Estée Lauder SA [1980] ECR 2481, 104/81 Kupferberg (Hauptzollamt) & Cie KG [1982]
[1981] 2 CMLR 143 279 ECR 3461, [1983] 1 CMLR 1 151
44/79 Hauer v Land Rheinland-Pflaz [1979] ECR 115/81, 116/81 Adoui and Cornuaille v Belgian State
3727, [1980] 3 CMLR 42 131 [1982] ECR 1165, [1982] 3 CMLR 631 359, 360,
55/79 Commission v Ireland [1980] ECR 481, [1980] 1 485, 486, 563–564
CMLR 734 527 124/81 Commission v United Kingdom (Re UHT Milk)
129/79 Macarthys Ltd v Smith [1980] ECR 1275, [1980] [1983] ECR 203, [1983] 2 CMLR 1 566
2 CMLR 205, [1979] ICR 785 309–310, 317 246/81 Lord Bethell v Commission [1982] ECR 2277,
138/79 Roquette Frères v Council [1980] ECR 3333 [1982] 3 CMLR 300 236
144–145, 211 249/81 Commission v Ireland (Re ‘Buy Irish’ Campaign)
140/79 Chemial Farmaceutici v DAF SpA [1981] ECR 1 [1982] ECR 4005, [1983] 2 CMLR 104 537–538,
529–530, 534 542, 581, 587
149/79 Commission v Belgium (Re Public ­Employees) 261/81 Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PvbA
[1980] ECR 3881, [1981] 2 CMLR 413 [1982] ECR 3961, [1983] 2 CMLR 496 546–547,
401–402, 443 575
155/79 Australia Mining & Smelting Ltd v Commission 283/81 CILFIT v Ministry of Health [1982] ECR 3415
[1982] ECR 1575, [1982] 2 CMLR 264 135 196, 198, 200
157/79 R v Pieck [1980] ECR 2171, [1980] 3 CMLR 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki, A E and Others v Commission
220, [1981] QB 571, [1981] 3 All ER 46 323 [1985] ECR 207 221–222, 225–226
 TABLE OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (NUMERICAL)   xxiii

35/82, 36/82 Morson and Jhanjan v Netherlands [1982] 137/84 Ministère Public v Mutsch [1985] ECR 2681,
ECR 3723, [1983] 2 CMLR 221 330, 385–386, [1986] 1 CMLR 648 405
418, 430 152/84 Marshall v Southampton & South West Hampshire
74/82 Commission v Ireland [1984] ECR 317 252 Area Health Authority [1986] ECR 723, [1986] 1
94/82 De Kikvorsch Groothandel-Import-Export BV CMLR 688 286, 287–289, 292, 293, 299, 308,
[1983] ECR 497, [1984] 2 CMLR 323 575 310, 311, 314, 597
132/82 Commission v Belgium (Re Customs Warehouses) 175/84 Krohn & Co Import-Export GmbH KG v Com-
[1983] ECR 1649, [1983] 3 CMLR 600 519–520 mission [1987] ECR 97, [1987] 1 CMLR 745 243
166/82 Commission v Italy [1984] ECR 459, [1985] 2 178/84 Commission v Germany (’German Bier’) [1987]
CMLR 615 254 ECR 1227, [1988] 1 CMLR 780 567–568, 574–
174/82 Officier van Justitie v Sandoz BV [1983] ECR 575, 577
2445, [1984] 3 CMLR 43 562, 567, 568 197/84 Steinhauser v City of Biarritz [1985] ECR 1819,
222/82 Apple and Pear Development Council v K J Lewis [1986] 1 CMLR 53 436
Ltd [1983] ECR 4083 538, 543, 581, 587 216/84 Commission v France [1988] ECR 793 566
237/82 Jongeneel Kaas BV v Netherlands [1984] ECR 222/84 Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster
483 561 Constabulary (RUC) [1986] ECR 1651 122, 135,
271/82 Auer v Ministère Public [1983] ECR 2727, 247
[1985] 1 CMLR 123 504 243/84 John Walker v Ministeriet for Skatter of Afgifter
314/82 Commission v Belgium [1984] ECR 1543, [1986] ECR 875, [1987] 2 CMLR 275 534, 535
[1985] 3 CMLR 134 522 59/85 Netherlands v Reed [1986] ECR 1283, [1987] 2
13/83 European Parliament v Council (Re Transport CMLR 448 422
Policy) [1985] ECR 1513, [1986] 1 CMLR 138 234, 66/85 Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg [1986]
235, 236 ECR 2121, [1987] 3 CMLR 389 386, 388, 402–
14/83 Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-West- 403, 430
falen [1984] ECR 1891 294–295, 298 121/85 Conegate Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners
72/83 Campus Oil Ltd v Minister for Industry and [1986] ECR 1007, [1987] QB 254, [1986] 2 All ER
Energy [1984] ECR 2727, [1984] 3 CMLR 344 545, 688 563
564–565 131/85 Gül v Regierungspräsident Düsseldorf [1986]
79/83 Harz v Deutsche Tradax [1984] ECR 1921 295, ECR 1573, [1987] 1 CMLR 501 357, 398
298, 317 139/85 Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1986] ECR
207/83 Commission v United Kingdom (Re Origin 1741, [1987] 1 CMLR 764 388, 430
Marking of Retail Goods) [1985] ECR 1202, [1985] 2 152/85 Misset v Council [1987] ECR 223 233
CMLR 259 547–548 154/85 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 2717 541
222/83 Municipality of Differdange and Others v Com- 168/85 Commission v Italy (Re Freedom of Establishment)
mission [1984] ECR 2889 221 [1986] ECR 2495, [1988] 1 CMLR 580 446
231/83 Cullet [1985] ECR 305 564 184/85 Commission v Italy (similar fruit) [1987] ECR
267/83 Diatta v Land Berlin [1985] ECR 567, [1986] 2 4157 526–527, 532
CMLR 164 354, 355 186/85 Commission v Belgium [1987] ECR 2029 252
286/82, 26/83 Luisi and Carbone v Ministero del Tesoro 193/85 Co-Frutta Srl v Amministrazione delle Finanze
[1984] ECR 377, [1985] CMLR 5226/83, [1989] dello Stato [1987] ECR 2085 526
ECR 2445 441, 477, 480, 506 196/85 Commission v France [1987] ECR 1597, [1988]
293/83 Gravier v City of Liège [1985] ECR 593, [1985] 2 CMLR 851 530
3 CMLR 1 426, 480 239/85 Commission v Belgium [1986] ECR 3645 282
294/83 Parti Ecologiste ( ‘Les Verts’) v European Parlia- 281/85, 283/85–285/85, 287/85 Germany, France,
ment [1986] ECLI:EU:1986:166 215 Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom v
29/84 Commission v Germany (Re Nursing Directives) Commission [1987] ECR 3203, [1988] 1 CMLR 11
[1985] ECR 1661, [1986] 2 CMLR 579 254, 282, 162–163
323, 397 314/85 Firma Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lubeck-Ost
60/84, 61/84 Cinéthèque SA v Fédération Nationale des [1987] ECR 4199 191, 196
Cinémas Français [1985] ECR 2605, [1986] 1 CMLR 316/85 Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Courcelles v Lebon
365 536–537, 554, 580 [1987] ECR 2811, [1989] CMLR 337 343–345,
106/84 Commission v Denmark [1986] ECR 833 526 406, 407, 410, 412, 414, 422–423, 426
112/84 Humblot v Directeur des Services Fiscaux 325/85 Bond van Adverteerders [1987] ECR 5041 441
[1985] ECR 1367, 1986 2 CMLR 363 527–528, 356/85 Commission v Belgium [1987] ECR 3299 533
529, 534 433/85 Feldain v Services Fiscaux du Departement du
122/84 Scrivner and Cole v Centre Public d’Aide Sociale Haut-Rhin [1987] ECR 3521 528
de Chastre [1985] ECR 1027, [1987] 3 CMLR 638 1/86 Commission v Belgium [1987] ECR 2797, [1989] 1
404–405, 413 CMLR 474 253, 300
xxiv  TABLE OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (NUMERICAL)

14/86 Pretore di Saló [1987] ECR 2545 298, 317 344/87 Bettray v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1989] ECR
24/86 Blaizot v University of Liège [1988] ECR 379, 1621, [1991] 1 CMLR 459 389, 407
[1989] 1 CMLR 57 406, 426 379/87 Groener v Minister for Education [1989] ECR
34/86 Council v Parliament [1986] ECLI:EU:1986:291 3967, [1990] 1 CMLR 401 400
215 C-2/88 Imm Zwartveld [1990] ECR I-3365 87
39/86 Lair v University of Hannover [1988] ECR 3161, C-5/88 Wachauf (Hubert) v Bundesamt Ehrnährung und
[1989] 3 CMLR 545 391, 406, 426, 480 Forstwirtschaft [1989] ECR 2609, [1991] 1 CMLR
45/86 Commission v Council (Generalised Tariff Preferenc- 328 121–122, 131
es) [1987] ECR 1493, [1988] 2 CMLR 131 211 C-21/88 Du Pont de Nemours Italiana SpA v
63/86 Commission v Italy (Re Housing Aid) [1988] ECR Unità sanitaria locale Nº 2 di Carrara [1990]
29, [1989] 2 CMLR 601 479 ECLI:EU:C:1990:121 544–545
68/86 United Kingdom v Council of the European Com- C-25/88 Wurmser [1989] ECR 1105, [1991] 1 CMLR
munities [1988] ECR 855 75 173 562
80/86 Officier van Justitie v Kolpinghuis Nijmegen BV C-33/88 Allué & Coonan v Università degli Studi di
[1987] ECR 3969, [1989] 2 CMLR 18 118, 299 Venezia [1989] ECR 1591, [1991] 1 CMLR 283
118/86 Openbaar Ministerie v Nertsvoederfabriek ­Nederland 398, 403
BV [1987] ECR 3883, [1989] 2 CMLR 436 561 C-54/88, 91/88, 14/89 Nino, Prandini & Goti, Pierini
120/86 Mulder v Minister van Landbouw en Visserij [1990] ECR I-3537, [1992] 1 CMLR 383 504
[1988] ECR 2321, [1989] 2 CMLR 1 118–119 C-64/88 Commission v France [1991] ECR I-2727
197/86 Brown v Secretary of State for Scotland [1988] 258–260
ECR 3205, [1988] 3 CMLR 403 406–407, 426 C-70/88 Parliament v Council (Chernobyl) [1991] ECR
222/86 UNECTEF v Heylens and Others [1987] ECR I-2041, [1992] 1 CMLR 91 188
4097, [1989] 1 CMLR 901 120, 600 C-103/88 Costanzo (Fratelli) v Comune di Milano [1989]
240/86 Greece v Commission [1998] ECR 1835 250 ECR 1839, [1990] 3 CMLR 239 188 247, 287
249/86 Commission v Germany (Re Housing of Migrant C-132/88 Commission v Greece (Greek car tax) [1990]
Workers) [1989] ECR 1263, [1990] 3 CMLR 540 ECR I-1567 528–529, 530
429–430 C-143/88 Zückerfabrik Süderdithmarschen v Hauptzol-
263/86 Belgium v Humbel [1989] ECR 393, [1989] 1 lampt Itzehoe [1991] ECR I-415, [1993] 3 CMLR 1
CMLR 393 441, 478, 480, 506 266
286/86 Ministère Public v Deserbais [1988] ECR 4907, C-145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B & Q plc (Sunday
[1989] 1 CMLR 576 575, 576 Trading Case) [1989] ECR 3851, [1990] 1 CMLR
298/86 Commission v Belgium [1988] ECR 4343 252 337 554, 580
302/86 Commission v Denmark (‘Drink Containers’) C-170/88 Ford Españia v Spain [1989] ECR 2305 520
[1988] ECR 4607 578 C-175/88 Biehl [1990] ECR I-1779, [1990] 3 CMLR
18/87 Commission v Germany (animal inspections) 143 406
[1988] ECR 5427 521, 522–523, 587 C-177/88 Dekker v Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jonge
45/87 Commission v Ireland (Re Dundalk Water Supply) Volwassen (VJV-Centrum) Plus [1990] ECR I-3941
[1988] ECR 4929, [1989] 1 CMLR 225 548–549 132
46/87 Hoechst AG v Commission [1989] ECR 2859, C-213/88 and C-39/89 Luxembourg v European Parlia-
[1991] 4 CMLR 410 135 ment [1991] ECLI:EU:C:1991:449 215
70/87 Fediol v Commission [1989] ECR 1781, [1991] 2 C-262/88 Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance
CMLR 489 149 Group [1990] ECR I-1889, [1990] 2 CMLR 513 284
81/87 R v HM Treasury, ex parte Daily Mail and General C-322/88 Grimaldi v Fonds des Maladies Professionelles
Trust plc [1988] ECR 5483 471–472 [1989] ECR 4407, [1991] ECR 4402 148, 195, 296
186/87 Cowan v Le Trésor Public [1986] ECR 195, C-23/89 Quietlynn Ltd v Southend-on-Sea Borough Coun-
[1990] 2 CMLR 613 477, 479–480, 484, 506 cil [1990] ECR I-3059, [1990] 3 CMLR 55 554
196/87 Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1988] C-106/89 Marleasing SA v La Commercial Internacional
ECR 6159, [1989] 1 CMLR 449 389, 430 de Alimentacion SA [1990] ECR I-4135, [1992] 1
240/87 Deville v Administration des Impôts [1988] ECR CMLR 305 295–298, 314–317, 597, 598
3513, [1989] 3 CMLR 611 528 C-113/89 Rush Portuguesa Lda v Office National d’Im-
266/87, 267/87 R v Royal Pharmaceutical Society of migration [1990] ECR 1417, [1991] 2 CMLR 818
Great Britain, ex parte API [1989] ECR 1295, [1989] 149
2 CMLR 751 538 C-188/89 Foster v British Gas [1990] ECR I-3313,
339/87 Commission v Netherlands (Re Protection of Wild [1990] 2 CMLR 833 287–290, 292, 310–313, 317,
Birds) [1990] ECR I-851, [1993] 2 CMLR 360 254 605
341/87 EMI Electrola GmbH v Patricia [1989] ECR 79, C-192/89 SZ Service v Staatsecretaris van Justitie [1990]
[1989] 2 CMLR 413 571–572 ECR I-3461, [1992] 2 CMLR 57 247
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
I m Jahre 1652, im hohen Mittag des Lebens, hat Rembrandt den
Faust, tiefstes Gleichnis immer unruhig fragender, suchender,
irrender und strebender Menschlichkeit radiert. Der Mann hinter dem
mit Pergamenten beladenen Schreibtisch ist aufgestanden und
schaut ergriffen in den magischen Lichtkreis, aus dem ihm der Name
Christi entgegenstrahlt. Fenster und Schreibtisch, Gewand und
Gesicht werden im flammenden Lichtstrom weiß geglüht.
Kurze Zeit danach wird die Radierung des „betenden David“ (B
41) entstanden sein. Nicht der grübelnde, bohrende Zweifel, sondern
die in sich versunkene hingegebene Andacht. Durch das Bild geht
der gedämpfte Klang stiller demütiger Zwiesprache mit Gott, hebt an
mit dem vertrauensvoll erhobenen Haupt, den zuversichtlich
gefalteten Händen, setzt sich fort in der Beugung des Rückens und
klingt in dem sanft verströmenden Licht aus.
David im Gebet
Der heilige Hieronymus im Gebet
Die heilige Familie (Frühzeit)
 Phot. Braun & Co., Dornach u. Paris
Der barmherzige Samariter 1648
 Phot. Braun & Co., Dornach u. Paris
Christus in Emaus
Solche Gestaltung war (auch für Rembrandt) keine
Selbstverständlichkeit. Zwanzig Jahre früher hatte er den betenden
Hieronymus (B 101) radiert, durchaus von der Gesinnung steilster
profaner Aktion erfüllt, in der Verkrampfung des Körpers, der
Verklammerung der Hände, dem Hervorbrechen der dunklen Gestalt
aus jäher Erhellung.
Schon diese drei Blätter offenbaren grundlegende Erkenntnis:
daß vermittels L i c h t und G e b ä r d e Rembrandt das religiöse Erlebnis
versinnlicht. Von Licht und Gebärde reden, heißt zugleich Art und
Richtung seiner Religiosität festlegen. Religiöses Schaffen
bedeutete ihm Übertragung seelischer Ergriffenheit in Fläche,
Helligkeit und Dunkelheit.
Ein anderes Bild. Das Gleichnis vom barmherzigen Samariter.
Man kennt die Worte des Evangeliums: Dann hob er ihn auf sein
Lasttier, führte ihn in die Herberge und trug Sorge für ihn. Rembrandt
hat das Thema oft in Gemälde, Radierung und Zeichnung gestaltet,
zuerst im Jahre 1633 (Wallace Museum London). Das Pferd, von
dem ein Knecht den nackten Verwundeten hebt, hält vor der
Herberge. Oben auf der Treppe verhandelt der Samariter mit dem
dienernden Wirt über die Unterbringung. Alles Beiwerk wird mit
größter Ausführlichkeit und Freude am Gegenständlichen
geschildert: Die breite Freitreppe, das Portal des Hauses, der
Ziehbrunnen im Hintergrund mit der wasserschöpfenden Magd,
Sattel und Halfter des Pferdes, der mit dem Wirt redende Samariter,
der breitspurige Pferdeknecht.
Hier wird Gleichgültiges und Wichtiges im gleichmäßigen Tonfall
epischer Erzählung ausgebreitet. Erst in der zweiten Fassung
(Louvre 1648) wird der eigentliche Sinn dieses Gleichnisses der
Barmherzigkeit geformt. Das dämmrige Licht der einbrechenden
Nacht dämpft alle Einzelheit, die Stadt mit den breiten schattigen
Bergen, die ruhige Fläche des Hauses, Pferd und Pferdejungen.
Sorglich und innerlich bewegt tragen zwei Knechte den
zusammengesunkenen Mann zum Wirtshaus, und mitleidsvoll
schaut der Samariter auf ihr Tun. In abendliches Dunkel ist das
traurige Geschehen eingebettet, in Strömen der Hinneigung von
Mensch zu Mensch das Mitleiden gebunden.
Ein anderes mit Vorliebe gestaltetes Thema: Christus und die
Jünger zu Emaus. „Und es geschah, da er mit ihnen zu Tisch saß,
nahm er das Brot, segnete es, brach es und reichte es ihnen, da
wurden ihre Augen aufgetan und sie erkannten ihn.“ Die erste
Formulierung aus dem Jahre 1629. Christus, herrisch zurückgelehnt,
hebt sich als schwarzer Profilschattenriß vom grellen Lichtkreis ab.
Der eine Jünger ist erschrocken in die Knie gesunken, der andere
fährt entsetzt zur Seite und starrt mit weitaufgerissenen Augen auf
das Zauberwerk.
Vor hohem ruhigen Nischenhintergrund geschieht in der zweiten
Fassung (Louvre 1648) der Vorgang. Die farbige Erscheinung ist zu
ruhigem Gesamtton abgedämpft, aus dem einzelne Farbigkeiten
nicht selbständig hervortreten. Christus, der das Brot bricht, sitzt den
beiden Jüngern gelassen und segnend gegenüber. Eine Quelle
sanften Lichtes strömt von ihm auf die zwei, die voll Ergriffenheit den
Herrn erkennen.
 Überaus still und feierlich ist das Geschehen, wie es eine dritte
Fassung (Louvre 1661) gibt. Wirkte das Zueinander der drei Figuren
in dem Bild von 1648 irgendwie noch zufällig, nicht restlos
notwendig, so scheint hier die Anordnung von einem fast
klassischen Gefühl für Symmetrie bestimmt; freilich, daß die
Zentralachse, Christus, sowohl im Gesamtraum wie im Verhältnis zu
den beiden Jüngern nach links verschoben ist, erinnert daran, daß
die Komposition nicht in Italien des 16. Jahrhunderts entworfen
wurde. Der Herr, in weißem Gewand, schwach beleuchtet, das
Haupt von unkörperlichem Lichtschimmer umgeben, sitzt
unbeweglich, feierlicher Ruhe voll, zwischen den Jüngern, deren
einer, von Ehrfurcht bewegt, sich vorneigt, indes der andere in
ergriffenem Staunen langsam die Hand hebt. Die drei vor
gleichmäßig matt erhellter, breit gelagerter Wand; durch das
geöffnete Fenster strömt, wie ferne köstliche Musik, die
Abenddämmerung in das Gemach.

Den jungen Rembrandt, das scheint aus solchen

Gegenüberstellungen sich zu ergeben, fesseln an der religiösen
Geschichte das erzählende Beiwerk, das Stilleben, die dramatischen
Möglichkeiten der Handlung; im Alter erst geht ihm der Sinn, die
gleichnishafte Bedeutung des religiösen Geschehens auf, erst im
Alter formt er die religiöse Stimmung.
In dem frühen radierten Blättchen der heiligen Familie (B 62), wo
Maria das Kind säugt, während Josef teilnahmslos bei Seite sitzend,
sich in ein Buch vertieft, klingen gewiß weiche Töne an; wie die
Mutter mit der einen Hand das Kind festhält, mit der anderen ihm die
Brust reicht, während Josef und die Räumlichkeit ins Dunkel
zurücktreten — aber ihre Begrenzung finden Mutterliebe und
Familienglück doch in der Stube des holländischen Hauses, in der
Enge bürgerlich-hausbackener Triebe.
Erst die Radierung von 1654 (B 63) gibt Gefühl in zeitloser
Unbegrenztheit. Die gleichen Personen wie früher, Maria, das Kind,
Josef, die gleichen Requisiten, der Raum mit seinen Wänden, allerlei
Hausrat und Getier. Und doch ist mehr da: Ströme sanfter
Glückseligkeit fließen von dem Antlitz des durch das Fenster
schauenden Josef zu Maria hin, die von der Süße und Dunkelheit
der Mutterschaft wie überwältigt zu dem Kind sich neigt und es an
sich drückt. Als letzte Bekräftigung des religiösen, über
menschliches Begreifen herausgehobenen Geschehens wird die
Verklärung in sinnlicher Sichtbarkeit wirksam: Maria vor der
Helligkeit des Fensters, den Strahlenkranz ums Haupt.

Solche Querschnitte nehmen Ergebnisse voraus. Man kann

einwenden, sie seien willkürlich der thematischen Idee zuliebe
gelegt. Es wird notwendig, Werden und Gewordenheit auf breiter
Grundlage aufzubauen.
Da sind die f r ü h e n Z e i c h n u n g e n aus den ersten fünfzehn
Jahren des Schaffens, beiläufig bis zum Jahre 1642 hin.
Die Kreuzschleppung (HdG 71). Christus unter der Riesenachse
des Kreuzes zusammenbrechend. Um ihn in wirrem Knäuel neun
Menschen; vorn links, breit laviert, die überaus wirksame
Rückenansicht eines Mannes. Die Federstriche dünn und
schnörkelhaft hingesetzt. Den Menschen und dem Raum fehlt
Klarheit und Körperlichkeit. Alles ist überaus handgreiflich gegeben
und bleibt doch irgendwie im Ungefähren.
Die heilige Familie im Zimmer

Die Kreuztragung
Christus treibt die Händler aus dem Tempel
 Phot. F. Hanfstaengl, München
Die heilige Familie 1646
Ein anderes Blatt dieser Jahre: Jakob mit Josefs blutigem Rock
(HdG 29). Jakob ist von dem gräßlichen Schauspiel auf das
schwerste getroffen in seinen Stuhl zurückgefallen. Seine ganze
Körperlichkeit, Augen und Stirn, Hand und Beine, krampft sich in
jammerndem Schmerz zusammen, seinem Mund entringt sich ein
gellender Schrei. In kleinen heftigen Strichen wird die
hochdramatische Szene hingesetzt.
Ähnliche Erregung brennt in einem andern Blatt: Der Engel
entschwindet Manoah und seinem Weib (HdG 31): in der jähen
Flugbewegung des Engels, der sich von der Erde abstößt, in der
zwischen erschrockener und ehrfürchtiger Verehrung schwankenden
Gebärde der Zurückbleibenden. Nichts vom Geheimnis der
Verkündigung; es schreit die stoßende, schlagende Geste.
Radierungen des gleichen Zeitraums. Christus vertreibt die
Händler aus dem Tempel vom Jahre 1635 (B 69). Ein wirres
Durcheinander der Stimmen und Bewegungen, dabei eine kindliche
Freude an beschaulicher Ausmalung jeder Einzelheit. Ein
wimmelndes Vielerlei der Erzählung, kein bestimmender Grundton,
kein durchgehender Rhythmus.
Die Darstellung im Tempel von 1639 (B 49). In langer
Aneinanderreihung der Zug der Zuschauenden, ohne ersichtliche
Teilnahme die meisten, ohne Verbindung mit dem Hauptvorgang, der
sich vorn rechts ohne sonderliche Akzentuierung in matter
Gleichgiltigkeit abspielt. Lichtwellen fließen im Hintergrund auf und
nieder, ein zufälliger und äußerlicher Hinweis auf den sakralen
Charakter des Vorgangs.
Die kleine Auferweckung des Lazarus vom Jahre 1642. Die
Wunderlichkeit des Geschehens wird betont. Christus, der große
Zauberer und Magier, streckt beschwörend die Hand aus — den
Toten gleichsam beschwörend. Lazarus kann solcher Beschwörung
nicht widerstehen und erhebt sich langsam und widerstrebend aus
dem Grab. Die Phantastik des Vorgangs wird unterstrichen durch die
mächtige Felsenkulisse, vor der er sich begibt, und findet einen
deutlichen Widerhall in den teils erschrockenen, teils ehrfürchtig
staunenden Gesichtern der Zuschauer.
Aus dem ersten Jahre des Rembrandtschen Schaffens stammt
das G e m ä l d e „Paulus im Gefängnis“ (Stuttgart). Vor hellbeleuchteter
Wand, auf schönfaltig hingebreiteter Decke, sitzt der Apostel; um
ihn, in liebevoller Ausführlichkeit, ein Stilleben: Bücher, Blätter, eine
Reisetasche, ein Schwert. Paulus sitzt mit gutgespielter, gewichtiger
(und dabei so konventioneller) Miene da und stützt sinnend das Kinn
auf die Rechte. Die grelle und kalte Beleuchtung wirkt als
aufdringlicher Hinweis, keinesfalls vergeistigend.
Der Zinsgroschen von 1629 (London). Der Szene soll die
mächtige, nicht ohne Sinn für monumentale Raumwirkung
aufgebaute Architektur Bedeutsamkeit leihen. Es läßt sich nicht
leugnen, daß hierdurch ein Hintergrund von gewisser Großartigkeit
geschaffen wurde, aber nicht ersichtlich ist, wodurch sich der
Vorgang von irgendwelchem profanen Geschehen unterscheidet.
In einem anderen Dialogstück, dem „Ungläubigen Thomas“ der
Eremitage von 1634 wiegt die Geste weit schwerer als das seelische
Gefühl. Man sieht um den in seiner Strahlenglorie schimmernden
Christus eine Anzahl Menschen angeordnet, und die Skala ihrer
Gefühle wird in geschickter Steigerung vorgeführt. Von dem rechts
vorn Schlafenden über Verwunderte, Erstaunende hin bis zu dem in
höchster Erschrockenheit zurückweichenden Apostel. Die zu sehr
überlegte Mannigfaltigkeit der Gestikulation, der allzu derbe
handgreifliche Überredungsversuch Christi verblüfft; er überzeugt
nicht, er ergreift nicht.
Das Opfer Abrahams der Eremitage von 1635 bleibt noch stärker
in rein theatralischem Pathos befangen. Unmöglich hier an Weihe
des Opfers zu denken. Die Art, wie Abraham mit klammerndem Griff
das Gesicht des Sohnes zudeckt und mit der anderen Hand zum
Stoß ausholt, erinnert peinlich an die Tätigkeit des Fleischers; die
gleiche rohe Handgreiflichkeit bestimmt die Bewegung des Engels,
der mit so schmerzhafter Kraft Abrahams Handgelenk umfaßt, daß
dieser unwillkürlich das Messer fallen läßt.
Vier Jahre später, 1639, ist das Münchener Bild „Die
Auferstehung Christi“ entstanden. Als neues Phänomen hier die
verklärende Wolke dunstig stäubenden Lichtes, welcher der Engel
entschwebt. Handwerkliche geläufige Mache, das allzu geschickt
angeordnete Durcheinander des Soldatenhaufens vorn links, das mit
stillebenhaftem Eifer gemalte Spiel der Lichtreflexe auf den
Rüstungen. Allzu rationalistisch der Gedanke, daß Christus des
Engels, der den schweren Stein hochwälzt, zur Auferstehung bedarf.
Auch die Haltung des im Grabe liegenden langsam Erwachenden
bestätigt den Eindruck, als bedürfe er eines Wundertäters zur
Erweckung. Aus dem Zwiespalt von Verklärung und Rationalismus
spricht aber das Werden neuer Dinge, deren Zeit nur noch nicht reif
ist.

Das religiöse Werk der folgenden anderthalb Jahrzehnte, bis

etwa zum Jahre 1654, wurzelt im Erdhaften. Es ist in dem
vorhergehenden Abschnitt dieses Buches angedeutet worden, wie
sehr die Bemühung um die Landschaft die Arbeit dieser Jahre
bestimmt. Aber damit ist noch zu wenig gesagt. Die Landschaft
weitet sich in dieser Zeit zum Gleichnis des erdverbundenen Lebens.
Zur Landschaft tritt die Pflanze („die Muschel“), das Tier (im
Pfauenstilleben, in den geschlachteten Ochsen). Neben der Natur
wird die andere Wurzel des Lebens, die Familie, in den Kreis der
Darstellung eingefügt. Wenn diese Schöpfungen über das Erdhafte
hinaus den Charakter des Religiösen tragen, so ist es dadurch, daß
hier, was in den Dingen des Lebens, der Natur wesenhaft, dauernd
gesetzlich, gleichnishaft ruht, in sinnlicher Form verwirklicht wurde.

Die Flucht nach Ägypten 1654

Die Kreuzabnahme bei Fackelschein
 Phot. F. Hanfstaengl, München
Moses zerschmettert die Gesetzestafeln
 Phot. F. Hanfstaengl, München
Jakob ringt mit dem Engel
Die innigste der verschiedenen in den vierziger Jahren
entstandenen Darstellungen der heiligen Familie ist die sogenannte
Holzhackerfamilie in Cassel. Der gemalte Rahmen, der
abschließende Vorhang erweckt von vornherein eine trauliche,
behagliche Stimmung, die in der ganzen Einrichtung des
Innenraums ihren Widerhall findet: In dem lustigen Feuerchen mit
der Katze, in dem weiten dämmrigen Fenster — draußen ist gewiß
ein kalter Winterabend —, in dem im Dunkel fast verschwimmenden,
mit Holzhacken beschäftigten Josef, in dem malerischen Gewinkel
der Hütte, die in spitzbogiges Gemäuer eingebaut ist. Und alles
steigert sich zu sanfter Musik in der von weichem Licht überfluteten
Maria, die zärtlich und innig das Kind herzt.
 Sachlichkeit der Erzählung, der Linie ist entscheidendes
Kennzeichen eines Blattes, wie der Abschied des verlorenen Sohnes
(Berlin HdG 60). Klar und bestimmt, fast hart, schnörkellos und doch
ohne allzu sehr vereinfachende Kürzung ist jeder Strich hingesetzt,
mit Bestimmtheit Volumen und Umriß der Menschen und Dinge
gekennzeichnet, ohne redselige Weitläufigkeit, aber doch auch nicht
zurückgeführt auf das gültige, dauernde Gleichnis, wie es die heilige
Geschichte erzählt. Solche reife Sachlichkeit ist Frucht rastloser
Bemühung um die Natur. Und doch ist mehr als das in dem Blatt: In
der erregten Hast, mit der der Sohn das Roß besteigt, in der
erschrockenen Handbewegung und Kopfwendung des Vaters wird
Rhythmus lebendig.
Das in diesen Jahren so häufige Thema der heiligen Familie wird
variiert dadurch, daß die Szene in die Landschaft verlegt wird: Die
Flucht nach Ägypten. So die Szene, wo Josef den Esel mit der
Mutter und dem Kinde führend, den Weg durch Walddickicht und
einen Bach sucht (B 55 vom Jahre 1654). Jede feste Form wird von
den durch die Blätter rinnenden Lichtern aufgelöst. Im Umriß bleibt
fast nur das Gesicht der drei Menschen und des Tieres kenntlich, in
den unergründlichen Überfluß des Waldes gebettet.

Die A l t e r s w e r k e Rembrandts möchte man als religiös in dem

eigentlichen und wesenhaften Sinn des Wortes bezeichnen, sodaß
alles vorangehende als stoffliche Vorbereitung, als handwerkliche
Vorstufe erscheint.
Was bleibt als entscheidende Erinnerung an ein Bild wie die
Landschaft mit Tobias und dem Engel (aus der Mitte der fünfziger
Jahre): Die Gebärde des zurückschreckenden Tobias, der Engel im
weißen Gewand und den weit gebreiteten Flügeln hinter ihm,
beruhigend, ermutigend. Die verschwimmende Umrißlinie des
abendlichen Hügels. Der Dunst der Dämmerung, worin die
Geschehnisse lagern.
Das Licht, gellende Trompetenstöße, feierliche Trauermusik, auf
der radierten Kreuzabnahme bei Fackelschein (B 83). Aus weiter
Ferne und vereinzelt die ersten zitternden Stöße, ein Gesicht, ein