"The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the States have limited their sovereign rights". "The Court... has the jurisdiction to answer... questions referred that... relate to the interpretation of the treaty."
Franz Grad 9/70 ECR-825
Commission v Italy 39/72 ECR 101
Reyners 2/74 ECR 631
Defrenne II ECR 455
Amsterdam Bulb 50/76 ECR 137
States can provide in national legislation for appropriate sanctions which are not provided for in the regulation, and can continue to regulate various related issues which are not covered in the regulation
Member States are precluded by their failure to implement a directive properly from refusing to recognise its binding effect in cases where it is pleaded against them, thus they cannot rely on their failure to implement the directive in time.
Becker 8/81 ECR 53
von Colson 14/83 ECR 1891
Kolpinghuis Nijmegen 80/86 ECR 3969
There is no obligation of harmonious interpretation where the national measure, interpreted in the light of the directive, would impose criminal liability.
Fratelli Costanzo 103/88 ECR 1839
Foster C-188/89 ECR I-3313
Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority Case 152/84 ECR I-4367
Faccini Dori C-91/92 ECR I-3325
CIA Security C-194/94 ECR I-2201
Arcaro C-168/95 ECR I-4705
Notwithstanding the Kolpinghuis ruling, the creation of any other kind of legal disadvantage of detriment, save for criminal liability, is very well possible.
Unilever Italia C-443/98 ECR I-7535
Primacy
Costa v ENEL 6/64 ECR 585
Community law takes precedence over the Member States own domestic law.
Simmenthal II 106/77 ECR 629
Duty to set aside provisions of national law which are incompatible with Community law.
Marleasing C-106/89 ECR I-7321
National law must be interpreted and applied, insofar as possible, so as to avoid a conflict with a Community rule.
Duty on national courts to secure the full effectiveness of Community law, even where it is necessary to create a national remedy where none had previously existed.
Rejection of Reciprocity Principles of General International Law
Commission v. Luxembourg & Belgium 90&91/63 ECR 625
"n view, … international law allows a party, injured by the failure of another party to perform its obligations, to withhold performance of its own … However, this relationship between the obligations of parties cannot be recognized under Community law. … he basic concept of the treaty requires that the Member States not take the law into their own hands."
Fundamental rights
Stauder 29/69 ECR 419
"Fundamental rights enshrined in the general principles of Community law and protected by the Court."
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft 11/70 ECR 1125
Fundamental rights are an integral part of the general principles of law the observance of which the Court ensures.
Nold 4/73 ECR 491, §13
When protecting fundamental rights, "the Court is bound to draw inspiration from constitutional traditions common to the Member States, and it cannot therefore uphold measures which are incompatible with fundamental rights recognised and protected by the Constitutions of those States." The Court can also draw on international human rights treaties to which Member States have collaborated or are signatories.
Carpenter C-60/00 ECR I-6279
Fundamental rights affect the scope and application of Community law. In Carpenter, the Court weaved principles of respect for family and private life from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights into its analysis of the rights of Union citizens. It concluded that the right of a minor child to reside in a Member State under Community law brought with it a corollary right for his mother to reside there as well.
Test Achats vs Council of Ministers
The legislative organs of the union cannot make laws which allow private sector organisations to discriminate on the grounds of gender even if such discrimination is based on relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data.
Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel C-199/12 720
Law of the institutions
Acts
Mandelli 3/67 ECR 25
Acts of the European institutions must be supported by sufficient reasoning, the validity of which shall be examined by the Court.
The Plaumann test sets out the criteria for non-privileged applicants to prove individual concern: 'Applicants must show that the decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed.'
Codorníu v Council C-309/89 ECR I-1853
In this case the court took a more liberal approach than the restrictive Plaumann test for establishing individual concern, which was, however, not followed in judgements thereafter.
Internal market
Free movement of goods
Definition of "goods"
Commission v Italy 7/68 ECR 423
'Goods' are "products which can be valued in money and which are capable, as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions."
Commission v Belgium C-2/90 ECR I-4431
"Waste, whether recyclable or not, is to be regarded as 'goods'."
Customs duties and equivalent charges
Articles 23 and 25 EC prohibit as between Member States all "customs duties on imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect". The prohibition in Article 25 also applies to customs duties of a fiscal nature.
Commission v Italy 24/68 ECR 193
Customs charges are prohibited because "any pecuniary charge, however small, imposed on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier constitutes an obstacle to the movement of such goods."
Diamantarbeiders 2/69 and 3/69 ECR 211
A charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty is "any pecuniary charge however small and whatever its designation and mode of application which is imposed unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense." This is the case "even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the State is not discriminatory or protective in effect, or if the product on which the charge is imposed is not in competition with any domestic product."
Bresciani 87/75 ECR 129
Charges imposed for a public health inspection carried out on the entry of goods to a Member State can be a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty. It was not important that the charges were proportionate to the costs of the inspection, nor that such inspections were in the public interest.
Commission v Germany 18/87 ECR 5427
A charge for a service will not be regarded as a customs duty where it: does not exceed the cost of the service, that service is obligatory and applied uniformly for all the goods concerned, the service fulfills obligations prescribed by Community law, and the service promotes the free movement of goods in particular by neutralising obstacles which may arise from unilateral measures of inspection.
Indirect taxation
Article 110 EC prevents any Member State from imposing, "directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products". This prohibition also extends to "internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products".
Humblot 112/84 ECR 1367
Quantitative restrictions
Article 34 EC bans "quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States", the same provision in respect of exports is found in Article 35 EC.
Geddo v Ente 2/73 ECR 865
Quantitative restrictions are "measures which amount to a total or partial restraint of, according to the circumstances, imports, exports or goods in transit."
MEQRs
Procureur du Roi v Dassonville 8/74 ECR 837
The following are prohibited as Measures having Equivalent effect to a Quantitative Restriction : "all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade."
Commission v Ireland 249/81 ECR 4005
Commission v UK 207/83 ECR 1201
Justification
Article 36 EC exempts quantitative restrictions which are justified on grounds of "public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property". The restrictions must not, in any case, "constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States".
Cassis de Dijon 120/78 ECR 649
Henn and Darby 34/79 ECR 3795
Keck and Mithouard C-267/91 and C-268/91 ECR I-6097
Francovich and Bonifaci C-6/90 and C-9/90 ECR I-5357
Brasserie du Pêcheur / Factortame III C-46/93 and C-48/93 ECR I-1029
British Telecom C-392/93 ECR I-1631
Faccini Dori C-91/92 ECR I-3325
Köbler C-224/01 ECR I-10239
ClientEarth C-404/13 2382
Elisabeta Dano and Florin Dano C-333/13 2358
Social policy
Defrenne III 149/77 ECR 1365
The scope of article 119 does not extend beyond equal pay, but the elimination of sex discrimination is a fundamental principle of Community law.
Fifty-seven pre-accession cases
The following is the official list of fifty-seven cases that were translated in preparation for new member states who joined the European Union in 2004. The list below contains fifty case names, because some cases were joined.
NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse administratie der belastingen Case 26/62
Plaumann & Co. v Commission Case 25/62
Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. Case 6/64
Établissements Consten S.à.R.L. and Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v Commission Case 56-58/64
Commission v Council Case 22/70
Aktien-Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council Case 5/71
Jean Reyners v Belgian State Case 2/74
Procureur du Roi v Benoît in Gustave Dassonville Case 8/74
Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office Case 41/74
Gabrielle Defrenne v Société anonyme belge de navigation aérienne Sabena Case 43/75