Yvonne van Duyn

20/10/2010
Judgement – Van Duyn
7பைடு நூலகம்
1. Whether article 48 of the EEC Treaty is directly effective? THESE PROVISIONS IMPOSE ON MEMBER STATES A PRECISE OBLIGATION WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ADOPTION OF ANY FURTHER MEASURE ON THE PART EITHER OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS OR OF THE MEMBER STATES AND WHICH LEAVES THEM, IN RELATION TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION, NO DISCRETIONARY POWER . LIMITATIONS of article 48 IS, HOWEVER, SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL CONTROL, SO THAT A MEMBER STATE' S RIGHT TO INVOKE THE LIMITATIONS DOES NOT PREVENT THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 48.
20/10/2010
Problem – Van Duyn
5
1. Whether article 48 of the EEC Treaty is directly effective? Yes. 2. Whether Council Directive 64/221 is directly effective? Yes. 3. WHETHER ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY AND Council Directive 64/221 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A MEMBER state IS ENTITLED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT certain facts AS MATTERS OF PERSONAL CONDUCT?
20/10/2010
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Case Overview – Van Duyn
3
The British government denied Yvonne Van Duyn, a Dutch national, an entry permit because she was affiliated with the Scientology religion, which the government had believed to be socially harmful. She sued, citing the Treaty of Rome and Community law, and the case was referred to the European Court of Justice (just a draft here, you can use the summary from ur book)
20/10/2010
Legal Background – Van Duyn
4
EEC Treaty Artcle.48 (TFEU 45)
1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union. 2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination …. 3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health ....
IT WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE BINDING EFFECT ==> Directives may have direct effect. Directive 64/221 intended to limit the discretionary power; therefore, it is not subject to any exception or condition & by its nature did not require intervention on the part of the Community or Member State. ==> Directive 64/221/EC in fact does produce direct effects
20/10/2010
Comments on Judgement – Van Duyn
10
Comments on (your book has some comments?)
The ECJ considered this issue in the Van Duyn case and concluded that as the directive provision in question conferred clear and unconditional obligations upon the UK Government, the directive therefore created enforceable rights. ECJ went further and held that secondary legislation could also create directly effective rights which individuals could rely upon in litigation in their national courts. Note: This was the first case to be referred by an English Court to the ECJ and since then there has been many.
Judgement – Van Duyn
9
3. WHETHER ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY AND Council Directive 64/221 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT certain facts AS MATTERS OF PERSONAL CONDUCT? THE CONCEPT OF “PUBLIC POLICY” MUST BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY, SO THAT ITS SCOPE CANNOT BE DETERMINED UNILATERALLY BY EACH MEMBER STATE WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY . JUSTIFYING RECOURSE TO THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC POLICY MAY VARY. IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY IN TO ALLOW NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AN AREA OF DISCRETION WITHIN THE LIMITS IMPOSED BY THE TREATY. ==> the discretion left to the UK in applying that Directive to the case is wide. .
20/10/2010
Before everything…
6
What is direct effect ? Direct effect is the principle of European Union law according to which provisions of Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights and impose obligations on individuals which the courts of European Union member states are bound to recognise and enforce. What is direct applicability? Direct applicability refers to the fact that regulations require no implementing legislation within individual member states - they take effect as soon as they are published by the European Commission. The early jurisprudence of the ECJ suggested that 'direct effect' was a consequence of direct applicability
1
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC LAW
C-41/74 Yvonne van Duyn v. Home Office [1974] ECR 1337
27/10/2010
Agenda
2
1.
Case Overview Legal Background Problem Statement Judgement Comments on Judgement Discussion
Directive of 25 February 1964 No 64/221 Article 3(1)