This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N E U RO P E A N L AW Series Editors PAUL CRAIG Professor of English Law at St John’s College, Oxford GRÁINNE DE BÚRCA Professor of Law at New York University School of Law The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N E U RO P E A N L AW Series Editors Paul Craig, Professor of English Law at St John’s College, Oxford and Gráinne de Búrca, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law The aim of this series is to publish important and original research on EU law. The focus is on scholarly monographs, with a particular emphasis on those which are interdisciplinary in nature. Edited collections of essays will also be included where they are appropriate. The series is wide in scope and aims to cover studies of particular areas of substantive and of institutional law, historical works, theoretical studies, and analyses of current debates, as well as questions of perennial interest such as the relationship between national and EU law and the novel forms of governance emerging in and beyond Europe. The fact that many of the works are interdisciplinary will make the series of interest to all those concerned with the governance and operation of the EU. other titles in this series Constitutional Pluralism in the EU KlemenJaklic EU Consumer Law and Human Rights IrisBenÖhr Th e Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Law Christine Janssens The Coherence of EU Free Movement Law Constitutional Responsibility and the Court of Justice Niamh Nic Shuibhne European Law and New Health Technologies Edited by Mark L Flear, Anne-Maree Farrell, Tamara K Hervey, and Thérèse Murphy The Legal Eff ect of EU Agreements MarioMendez Th e Enforcement of EU Law The Role of the European Commission Stine Andersen European Agencies Law and Practice of Accountability Madalina Busuioc The Foundations of European Union Competition Law The Objective and Principles of Article 102 Renato Nazzini Th e Emergence of EU Contract Law Exploring Europeanization LucindaMiller Participation in EU Rule-making A Rights-Based Approach JoanaMendes Regulating Cartels in Europe Second Edition Christopher Harding, Julian Joshua Religion and the Public Order of the European Union RonanMcCrea Governing Social Inclusion Europeanization through Policy Coordination Kenneth A. Armstrong Judicial Control in the European Union Reforming Jurisdiction in the Intergovernmental Pillars Alicia Hinarejos EU Counter-Terrorist Policies and Fundamental Rights The Case of Individual Sanctions Christina Eckes From Dual to Cooperative Federalism The Changing Structure of European Law Robert Schütze Conflicts of Rights in the European Union A Theory of Supranational Adjudication Aida TorresPérez Judicial Deliberations A Comparative Analysis of Transparency and Legitimacy Mitchel de S-O-l’E Lasser Racism and Equality in the European Union MarkBell Constitutional Principles of EU External Relations Geert De Baere This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law M A RC U S K L A M E RT This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © M Klamert 2014 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2014 Impression:1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the addressabove You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2013949379 ISBN 978–0–19–968312–3 Printed and boundin Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work. This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Series Editors’ Preface Marcus Klamert’s book on ‘The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law’ is a welcome addition to this series. It is an important subject, and the book is divided into four parts. In the first part, the author considers the way in which Article 4(3) TEU was drafted and its relevance for the themes in this book. We are introduced to what the author regards as specifications of loyalty, such as loyalty and conflict resolution, and loyalty and duties of abstention. We are introduced also to the addressees of the loyalty obligation, with discussion of horizontal loyalty, vertical loyalty and reverse vertical loyalty, the latter connoting obligations flowing from the EU to the Member States, rather than vice-versa. Klamert considers the relationship between loyalty and other doctrinal concepts such as good faith and pacta sunt servanda, as well as the federal dimension to fidelity, with comparative insights drawn from US, Canadian, and Australian law, and from a number of continental legal systems, such as Belgium, Austria and Germany. There is analysis of the extent to which the concept of loyalty can be said to have informed the CJEU’s case law in seminal decisions such as Costa , ERTA and Francovich In the second part consideration is given to the way in which loyalty fosters the cohe- sion of EU law. Klamert argues that loyalty informs, underpins or shapes legal concepts developed by the EU courts in order to ensure that EU law can function in a cohesive manner. This leads to examination of supremacy, pre-emption, and the principle of effectiveness, although Klamert recognizes the diversity of meaning accorded to the concept of effectiveness in the CJEU’s case law. The focus in part three of the book shifts to the role played by loyalty in relation to cooperation in EU law. This provides the setting for examination of the rules con- cerning delimitation of competence between the EU and the Member States, and the role played by loyalty in the interpretation and application of the respective fields in which the EU and the Member States can exercise power. There is an overview of the distribution of competence in the post-Lisbon world, followed by analysis of the way in which loyalty impacts on the field of non-exclusive competence. The discussion includes consideration of the way in which loyalty plays a role in relation to certain kinds of secondary EU legislation. The final part of the book deals with loyalty and the construction of the EU. The objective is to draw together certain more general conceptual issues that have occupied the courts and academic commentary, and to reveal the ways in which loyalty plays a role in relation to their development and content. This includes exploration of cooper- ation/conflict in the EU, and analysis of the extent to which loyalty can be seen as an independent source of obligation and as a general principle of law. This is a thought-provoking book that will be of interest to all those who study EUlaw. Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Preface The purpose of this book is to offer a thorough discussion of the principle of loyalty in European Union law. In spite of its continued provision in primary law, in wording that has remained almost unchanged since the Rome Treaties, there is no comprehensive English language study on loyalty to date. While also addressing the pertinence of loyalty in the Common Foreign Security Policy, the focus of this book is on the other areas of Union law. ‘Hard’, confrontational rules on conflict resolution such as supremacy, pre-emption and duties of abstention are discussed alongside ‘softer’, more cooperative duties of confl ict prevention such as duties of consideration and coordination. This book introduces a novel way of classifying the very diverse roles loyalty plays in the European Union. It will distinguish between the effects loyalty prescribes for inter- locking the legal orders of the Member States with Union law (Loyalty and the Cohesion of European Union law), its application for preventing and resolving conflicts (Loyalty and Cooperation in the European Union), and its constitutional aspects (Loyalty and the Construction of the European Union). Cohesion deals with loyalty as the rationale for the intervention of Union law in the legal orders of the Member States by prin- ciples such as supremacy, effectiveness, direct effect, and the Union interest. The Part on Cooperation is concerned, in particular, with the delimitation of the powers between the EU institutions and the Member States in terms of the distribution and the exercise of competence in matters such as supporting competences and mixed agreements. Finally, the Part on Construction, among other things, deals with the role of loyalty in shaping the EU constitution and with the question of whether loyalty has been neglected in the prevailing narratives on this process. Each of these parts of the book, as well as the three introductory chapters, addresses important and yet unresolved questions pertaining to loyalty. Thus, its relation to other central concepts of Union law, such as solidarity, pre-emption, the Union interest, insti- tutional balance, and the unity of international representation, is explored. The limits to the application of loyalty are discussed by introducing the concept of amplification, as well as its position among general principles of Union law and its controversial role in what is perceived as judicial lawmaking. This book also suggests several ways to systematize the manifold obligations grounded on loyalty in Union law, distinguishing duties of consideration from duties of coordination and duties of abstention, as well as the application of loyalty as a legal principle, a rule of interpretation, a supporting legal basis, or a separate source of obligations. This is a book that I have thoroughly enjoyed writing. It allowed me to reflect on aspects of EU law I had so far not yet written about, and at the same time revisit and re-explore issues that have preoccupied me during the past years. When I started work on this study, loyalty in Union law had only been the subject of limited scholarly attention. While this has changed over recent years, especially in the literature on external relations, I believe that this book will contribute both to many general issues in EU law as well as to some legal issues particular to Union loyalty. I am grateful to a number of people for different reasons. I sincerely have to thank Stefan Griller for his unfaltering support, inspiring ideas, comments, and the ability to lay a finger on every weakness of argument. Christoph Grabenwarter has been a support- ive, resourceful and encouraging protagonist in bringing this book to completion. Erich Vranes has been a truly inspiring colleague in his ambitions and his work ethic. I want to express my gratitude to Marise Cremona for hosting me at the Law Department of This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Preface viii the European University Institute at a crucial phase of the work on this book, for her inspiring courses that I have been allowed to attend, and the encouragement to pursue my chosen topic. I also want to thank the Institute of European and Comparative Law at the University of Oxford for hosting me during another crucial period towards the end of my work on this book. Nicholas Aroney, Peter Thalmann, and Andreas Orator have commented on different parts of the manuscript. I would also like to express my gratitude to my former colleagues at the WU for providing a stimulating and friendly environment for conducting my research throughout the last few years. Last but certainly not least, I am grateful to Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca for having included this book in their series, and to Oxford University Press for being supportive all the way. Vienna and Brussels August 2013 This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Contents Table of Cases xiii Table of Instruments xxi Introduction 1 1. The Background 1 2. Caveats as Regards Perspective and Methodology 2 3. The System Applied in this Study 4 I . I N T RO D U C I N G L OY A LT Y 1. Loyalty in the EU Treaties 9 1. Introduction 9 2. Loyalty before the Lisbon Treaty 10 3. The Lisbon Treaty Amendments 11 4. Specifi cations of Article 4 (3) TEU in the Treaties 13 5. Loyalty and National Identities 19 6. The Vectors of the Application of Loyalty 22 7. Conclusion 29 2. Loyalty in Context 31 1. Introduction 31 2. Some Remarks on Terminology 33 3. Distinguishing the Union Principle of Solidarity 35 4. The Relation with the Principles of Good Faith and pacta sunt servanda 41 5. Federal Fidelity in the European Union 47 6. Conclusion 61 3. Loyalty and the Constitutionalization of EU Law 63 1. Introduction 63 2. Loyalty in the Literature 64 3. The Foundational Case Law Re-assessed 71 4. The Way Loyalty Has Been Used by the Court in the Foundational Case Law 80 5. Conclusion 83 Conclusion of the Introductory Part 84 I I . T H E C O H E S I O N O F E U RO P E A N U N I O N L AW Introduction 85 4. A Primer on the Structure of Union Law 87 1. Introduction 87 2. The Unity of National Law and Union Law 88 This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Contents x 3. The (Inner) Unity of the Union Legal Order 92 4. Conclusion 99 5. Supremacy, Pre-emption, and the Union Interest 101 1. Introduction 101 2. Some Thoughts on the Nature of Supremacy 101 3. Duties Unrelated to Supremacy Flowing from Secondary Law 105 4. Duties Unrelated to Supremacy Flowing from Preparatory Legal Acts 110 5. Do We Need a Concept of Pre-emption in Union Law? 115 6. The Union Interest 122 7. Conclusion 123 6. Effectiveness, Judicial Protection, and Loyalty 125 1. Introduction 125 2. The Principle of Eff ectiveness and the Enforcement of Individual Rights 126 3. Effectiveness and Compliance by the Member States 131 4. Effectiveness, Eff ective Judicial Protection, and Indirect Effect 133 5. Effectiveness, Eff ective Judicial Protection, and Duties of Abstention 136 6. Conclusion 137 Conclusion of the Part on Cohesion 139 I I I . C O O P E R AT I O N I N T H E E U RO P E A N U N I O N Introduction 141 7. A Primer on Union Competences 143 1. Codifi cation in the Lisbon Treaty 143 2. Three Categories of Competences 144 3. The General System of External Powers of the Union After Lisbon 146 4. Exclusive Competences 147 5. Non-exclusive Competences 157 6. Conclusion 159 8. Loyalty and Non-exclusive Competences 161 1. Introduction 161 2. Loyalty and ‘Regular’ Shared Competences 161 3. Loyalty and ‘Irregular’ Shared Competences 163 4. Loyalty and Supporting Competences 167 5. Conclusion 171 9. Manifestations of Loyalty in Secondary Law 173 1. Introduction 173 2. Non-supervisory Notifi cation Obligations 174 3. Supervisory Notifi cation Obligations on Technical Standards 175 This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Contents xi 4. Hybrid: The Services Directive 177 5. Prohibitions of Frustration and Transitional Periods 178 6. ‘Managed’ Preclusion of Member States 179 7. Conclusion 182 10. Loyalty and Mixed Agreements 183 1. Introduction 183 2. Competence and Mixed Agreements 185 3. The General Application of Loyalty to Mixed Agreements 188 4. Loyalty and the Requirement of Unity 190 5. Loyalty and the Conclusion of Mixed Agreements 192 6. Loyalty and Declarations of Competence 195 7. Loyalty and Common Positions 197 8. Loyalty and the Ratifi cation of Mixed Agreements 202 9. Loyalty and the Interpretation and Implementation of Mixed Agreements 203 10. Conclusion 206 Conclusion of the Part on Cooperation 207 IV. T H E C O N S T RU C T I O N O F T H E E U RO P E A N U N I O N Introduction 209 11. A Primer on Cooperation and Constitutional Conflict in the European Union 211 1. Introduction 211 2. Preliminary References and Other Interactions Between Courts in the EU 212 3. Loyalty, Institutional Balance, and Confl icts of Legal Basis 215 4. The Relationship Between the ECJ and the Union Legislature 217 5. Constitutional Conflicts Between EU Law and Member State Legal Regimes 225 6. Conclusion 232 12. On the Nature of Loyalty 233 1. Introduction 233 2. Loyalty as an Independent Source of Obligations 234 3. Loyalty as a General Principle of Union Law 241 4. Conclusion 249 5. Interim Summary of the Roles of Loyalty in EU Law 250 13. Deconstructing Loyalty 252 1. Introduction 252 2. Evaluation Criteria for the Reasoning of the Court 253 3. Loyalty, Effectiveness, and effet utile 261 4. Loyalty and Self-referential Reasoning 267 5. Conclusion 273 This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Contents xii 14. Amplifi cation and the Limits of Loyalty 275 1. Introduction 275 2. The Amplifi cation of Provisions of Primary and Secondary Law 276 3. Loyalty, the Prohibition of Discrimination, and Inter se Treaties 280 4. The Amplifi cation of Internal Union Rules 286 5. The Hurd Case 288 6. The Limits to Amplifi cation 290 Conclusion of the Part on Construction 297 Final Remarks 298 References 301 Index 325 This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Table of Cases W TO APPELL ATE BODY United States–Import Prohibtion of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (WT/DS58/AB/R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 United States–Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (WT/DS2/AB/R) . . . . . .45 GERMAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 1.Rundfunkentscheidung (Case 2 BvG 1/60 und 2 BvG 2/60) [1961] BVerfGE 12, 205 . . . . . . .56 Alcan (Case 2 BvR 1210/98) [2000], Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, (2000), 445 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 Antiterrordateigesetz (Case 1 BvR 1215/07), Judgment of 24 April 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 Bananenmarktordnung (Case 2 BvL 1/97) [2000] BVerfGE 102, 147 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232 Besoldungsgesetz von Nordrhein-Westfalen (Case 2 BvG 1/54) [1954] BVerfGE 4, 115 . . . . . . . .56 Besoldungsvereinheitlichung (Case 2 BvF 1/71) [1972] BVerfGE 34, 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Europäischer Haftbefehl (Case 2 BvR 1826/09) [2009], <http:// www.bverfg.de/ entscheidungen/rk20090903_2bvr182609.html> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 Finanzausgleichsgesetz (Case 1 BvF 2/51) [1952] BVerfGE 1, 117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9, 56 Görgülü (Case 2 BvR 1481/04) [2004] BVerfGE 111, 307 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 Honeywell (Case 2 BvR 2661/06) [2010] BVerfGE 126, 286 . . . . . . .213–214, 227, 229–230, 257 Kloppenburg (Case 2 BvR 687/85) [1987] BVerfGE 75, 223 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 Lisbon Treaty (Case 2 BvE 2/08 et al. ) [2009] BVerfGE 123, 267 . . . . 21, 211–212, 229, 231–232 Maastricht Treaty (Case 2 BvR 1877/97 and 2 BvR 50/98) [1998] BVerfGE 97, 350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49, 229, 232 Neugliederung Hessen (Case 2 BvG 2/58, 2 BvE 1/59) [1961] BVerfGE 13, 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Niedersächsisches Landesbesoldungsgesetz (Case 2 BvN 1/69) [1974] BVerfGE 36, 342 . . . . . . .55 Numerus Clausus II (Case 1 BvF 1/76 et al.) [1977] BVerfGE 43, 291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51, 57 Reichskonkordat (Case 2 BvG 1/55) [1957] BVerfGE 6, 309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Solange I (Internationale Handelsgesellschaft) (Case 2 BvL 52/71) [1974] BVerfGE 37, 271 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232 Solange II (Case 2 BvR 197/83) [1986] BVerfGE 73, 339 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89, 232 Teilzeitqualifi zierung (Case 1 BvR 1036/99) [2001], Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, (2001), 255 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 Wasser- und Schiffahrtsverwaltung (Case 2 BvG 1/62) [1967] BVerfGE 21, 312 . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Weihnachtsgeld (Case 2 BvQ 1/53, 2 BvQ 2/53) [1953] BVerfGE 3, 52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Wohnungsbauförderung (Case 2 BvH 2/52) [1952] BVerfGE 1, 299 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9, 56 AUSTRIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Jagdrecht/Forstrecht (Case G 81/84, 82/84) [1984] VfSlg. 10.292 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57–58 Mineralöl (Case B 282/92, B60/93) [1993] VfSlg. 13.586 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Sammlungsgesetz (Case KII-4/79) [1982] VfSlg. 9337 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Semmering Basistunnel (Case G 256/98) [1999] VfSlg. 15.552 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Tierschutz (Case V 17/06) [2007] VfSlg. 18.096 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 Vorratsdatenspeicherung (Case G 47/12-11 et al.), Decision of 28 November 2012 . . . . . . . . . .214 Wr. Behindertengesetz (Case G 5/80) [1980] VfSlg. 8831 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57–58 CZECH REPUBLIC CONSTITUTIONAL COURT Case Pl. ÚS 29/09 Lisbon II [2009], <http://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Table of Cases xiv Case Pl. ÚS 19/08 Lisbon I [2008], <http://www.usoud.cz/clanek/en/decisions> . . . . . . . . . . . .225 CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF POL AND Case K 18/04 [2005], <http://www.trybunal.gov.pl/eng/summaries/documents/K_18_04_ GB.pdf> (last accessed on 9 December 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF HUNGARY Case 17/2004 (V 25) AB, <http://www.mkab.hu/letoltesek/en_0017_2004.pdf> (last accessed on 9 December 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE A.G.M.-COS.MET Srl v Suomen Valtio and Tarmo Lehtinen (Case C-470/03) [2007] ECR I-2749 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .279 Accession to GATS (Opinion 1/08) [2009] ECR I-11129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 Adeneler and Others (Case C-212/04) [2006] ECR I-6057 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24, 92, 104, 108 Adidas AG (Case C-223/98) [1999] ECR I-7081 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128 AIMA (Joined cases C-231/00, C-303/00 and C-451/00) [2004] ECR I-2869 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127 Åkerberg Fransson, Judgment of 26 February 2013, (Case C-617/10) nyr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 Albany International (Case C-67/96) [1999] ECR I-5751 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 277 Algera v Common Assembly (Joined cases 7/56 and 3-7/57) [1957-58] ECR 39 . . . . . . . . . . . .268 Almelo (Case C-470/04) [2006] ECR I-7409 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Amsterdam Bulb (Case 50/76) [1977] ECR 137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 Ariete (Case 811/79) [1980] ECR 2545 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245 Athanasios Vatsouras and Josif Koupatantze (Joined cases C-22/08 and C-23/08) [2009] ECR I-4585 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219 Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft (Case C-465/93) [1995] ECR I-3761 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213 Audiolux SA (Case C-101/08) [2009] ECR I-9823 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Azienda Agricola Giorgio, Giovanni e Luciano Visentin and Others (Case C-495/00) [2004] ECR I-2993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 Banks & Co (Case C-390/98) [2001] ECR I-6117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127 Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange (Case C-262/88) [1990] ECR 1889 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217 BayWa AG (Joined cases 146, 192 and 193/81) [1982] ECR I-1503 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 Belgium v Commission (‘Maribel Scheme’) (Case C-75/97) [1999] ECR I-3671 . . . . .42, 244–245 Beuttenmüller (Case C-102/02) [2004] ECR I-5405 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Bidar (Case C-209/03) [2005] ECR I-2119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35, 219, 222–224 Bjornekulla Fruktindustrier (Case C-371/02) [2004] ECR 5791 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 BMW (Case C-63/97) [1999] ECR 905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 Brasserie du Pêcheur (Joined cases C-46/93 and C-48/93) [1996] ECR I-1029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 79, 125, 131, 244–245, 260–261, 265, 271 British United Provident Association Ltd (BUPA) (Case T-289/03) [2008] ECR II-81. . . . . . . . . .35 Broekmeulen (Case 246/80) [1981] ECR 2311 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 Bulk Oil (Case 174/84) [1986] ECR 559 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111, 144 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (Opinion 2/00) [2001] ECR I-9713 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24, 184–185, 188, 190, 215–216 Centro-Com (Case C-124/95) [1997] ECR I-81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 Christian Dior and Assco Gerüste (Joined cases C-300/98 and C-392/98) [2000] ECR I-11307. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23, 204 CILFIT (Case 283/81) [1982] ECR 3415 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Cipolla (Joined cases C-94/04 and C-202/04) [2006] ECR I-11421 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .276 Collins (Case C-138/02) [2004] ECR I-2703 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223 Comet (Case 45/76) [1976] ECR 2043 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Commission v Austria (Brenner Motorway) (Case C-205/98) [2000] ECR I-7367 . . . . . . . . . . . .31 This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Table of Cases xv Commission v Austria and Commission v Sweden (Joined cases C-205/06 and C-249/06) [2009] ECR I-1301 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28, 161–163 Commission v Austria Case (C-424/99) [2001] ECR I-9285 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Commission v Belgium (Case 85/85) [1986] ECR 1149. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .292 Commission v Belgium (Case C-6/89) [1990] ECR I-1595 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 Commission v Belgium (Directive 76/491/EEC) (Case C-374/89) [1991] ECR I-367 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31, 237–238 Commission v Belgium (Directive 91/271/EEC) (Case C-236/99) [2000] ECR I-5657 . . . . . . .240 Commission v Belgium (Family Allowances) (Case 186/85) [1987] ECR 2029. . . . . . . . . .286–287 Commission v Belgium (Holding) (Case 52/84) [1986] ECR 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239, 245 Commission v Council (Accession of Vietnam to WTO), (Case C-13/07) removed from registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164, 193 Commission v Council (Case 218/82) [1983] ECR 4063 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222, 247 Commission v Council (ERTA) (Case 22/70) [1971] ECR 263. . . . . . . . . . . . . 73–75, 81–82, 105, 143, 148, 150, 153–154, 186, 291 Commission v Council (Lomé Convention) (Case 218/82) [1983] ECR 4063 . . . . . . . . . .222, 247 Commission v Council (Nuclear Safety Convention) (Case C-29/99) [2002] ECR I-11221 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196–197 Commission v Council (Rotterdam Convention) (Case C-94/03) [2006] ECR I-1 . . . . . . . . . . .184 Commission v Council (Small Arms and Light Weapons) (Case C-91/05) [2008] ECR I-3651 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99, 216 Commission v Denmark (Open Skies) (Case C-467/98) [2002] ECR I-9519 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73, 106–107, 151, 154–156, 180, 234, 283–284 Commission v France (Case 6 & 11/69) [1969] ECR 523 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37, 40 Commission v France (Case C-265/95) [1997] ECR I-6959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .278–280 Commission v France (Étang de Berre) (Case C-239/03) [2004] ECR I-9325 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205 Commission v France (Fisheries) (Case C-304/02) [2005] ECR I-06263. . . . . . . . . . . . .15, 40, 173 Commission v France (National Agricultural Credit Fund) (Case 290/83) [1985] ECR 439 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .292–294 Commission v Germany (Case C-61/94) [1996] ECR I-3989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Commission v Germany (Heavy Goods Vehicles) (Case C-195/90) [1992] ECR I-3141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16–17 Commission v Germany (Inland Waterway) (Case C-433/03) [2005] ECR I-6985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13, 111–113, 235 Commission v Germany (Market in Wine) (Case C-217/88) [1990] ECR I-2879 . . . . . . . .42, 239 Commission v Germany (Primary Aluminium) (Case 94/87) [1989] ECR 175 . . . . . . . . .239, 245 Commission v Germany (TIR Carnets) (Case C-105/02) [2006] ECR I-9659 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237 Commission v Greece (Case 240/86) [1988] ECR 1835 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237 Commission v Greece (Community’s Own Resources) (Case 68/88) [1989] ECR 2965 . . . . . . .129 Commission v Greece (Credit Terms) (Case 192/84) [1985] ECR 3967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28, 236 Commission v Greece (IMO) (Case C-45/07) [2009] ECR I-701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190, 198, 236 Commission v Greece (List D) (Case C-65/91) [1992] ECR I-5245 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238 Commission v Greece (Market in Feed Grain) (Case C-35/88) [1990] ECR I-3125. . . . . . . . . . .13 Commission v Greece (Olive Oil) (Case 272/86) [1988] ECR 4875 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238 Commission v Ireland (Bern Convention) (Case C-13/00) [2002] ECR I-2943 . . . . . . . . . . . . .205 Commission v Ireland (Buy Irish) (Case C-249/81) [1982] ECR 4005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .277 Commission v Ireland (MOX Plant) (Case C-459/03) [2006] ECR I-4635 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 31, 186–187, 189, 191, 196, 204, 235, 240 Commission v Italy (Case 10/61) [1962] ECR 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 Commission v Italy (Case C-48/89) [1990] ECR I-2425 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .237 Commission v Italy (Case C-82/03) [2004] ECR I-6635 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28, 235, 238 Commission v Italy (Premiums for Grubbing Fruit Trees) (Case 30/72) [1973] ECR 161 . . . . . .128 Commission v Italy (Premiums for Slaughtering Cows) (Case 39/72) [1973] ECR 101 . . . . . . . .37 Commission v Italy (Public Works Contracts) (Case 274/83) [1985] ECR 1077 . . . . . . . . . . . . .237 Commission v Italy (Recovery of Undue Payment) (Case 104/86) [1998] ECR 1799 . . . . . . . . .132 Commission v Italy (Waste Management) (Case C-135/05) [2007] ECR I-3475 . . . . . . . . . . . .237 This is an open access version of the publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact academic.permissions@oup.com Table of Cases xvi Commission v Jégo-Quéré (Case C-263/02 P) [2004] ECR I-3425 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127, 218 Commission v Luxembourg (Inland Waterway) (Case C-266/03) [2005] ECR I-4805 . . . . . . . . 13, 111, 188, 1