Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
18 views

Tutorial 4

1) The tutorial focuses on further developing students' understanding of EU law topics covered in Lectures 7-9 through interactive discussion. 2) Students are expected to come prepared having done the required reading and to actively participate by asking questions, discussing the questions provided, and answering exam-style questions on topics like the preliminary ruling procedure and standing in EU law. 3) Key topics for discussion include the role of the preliminary ruling procedure, when national courts must/can make references to the CJEU, the distinction between privileged and non-privileged applicants in EU law, and reforms to standing in EU law.

Uploaded by

gabriela-roxana.agache
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views

Tutorial 4

1) The tutorial focuses on further developing students' understanding of EU law topics covered in Lectures 7-9 through interactive discussion. 2) Students are expected to come prepared having done the required reading and to actively participate by asking questions, discussing the questions provided, and answering exam-style questions on topics like the preliminary ruling procedure and standing in EU law. 3) Key topics for discussion include the role of the preliminary ruling procedure, when national courts must/can make references to the CJEU, the distinction between privileged and non-privileged applicants in EU law, and reforms to standing in EU law.

Uploaded by

gabriela-roxana.agache
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Tutorial 4

!!! Attendance of the tutorials is compulsory. Tutorials are meant to be interactive. Advance preparation and
active participation in class is therefore required. Always mention the relevant legal provisions in the Treaty or
secondary EU legislation when discussing the law. Substantiate your answers with arguments based on your
reading and study of the case law of the CJEU! Feel free to raise questions throughout the tutorial.

Tutorial objectives:
● To acquire further insight in a practical and interactive manner into the subject matter of Lectures 7-9;

● To develop your legal reasoning, argumentation and oral skills.

Essential Reading:

● See the required reading for Lectures 7-9 in the respective readers, including the case law;

Questions for discussion in class

First consider these general questions:

1. What is the role played by the preliminary rulings procedure in the EU legal order?

2. When can national courts choose to request a preliminary reference to the CJEU? When are the
national courts required to do so?

3. What is the distinction between privileged and non-privileged applicants regarding action for
annulment under EU law?

4. What are the key reforms introduced by the Lisbon Treaty in Article 263 TFEU?

5. To which extent should the CJEU’s narrow interpretation of standing rules for non-privileged
applicants be reconsidered?

6. What role does the Commission play in the infringement proceedings?

Now answer the following exam-style questions (both essay-style and problem questions):

7. The preliminary reference procedure is an essential part of the EU legal order. The loss of
independence of the national judiciary is therefore a direct threat to the preliminary reference
procedure.

Within this context:

A. Explain why the preliminary reference procedure is an essential part of the EU legal order.

B. Explain how the loss of independence of a national court can threaten its relationship with the
Court of Justice of the EU.
8. Foreign direct investments (FDI) are investments made by investors from third countries into EU
companies with the intention to influence the management and/or control of the companies. A prime
example of FDI is the takeover of an EU company by a company of a third, non-EU country. FDI can
lead to economic growth, jobs, innovation, boost productivity and enhance the competitiveness of
companies. Due to these benefits, many countries have liberalised FDI over the past decades.
However, FDI can also adversely affect the security and/or public order of the host country. This is
especially the case when foreign companies, often supported by governments of third countries, take
over EU companies with key technologies for strategic and geopolitical reasons.

In order to deal with these strategic and geopolitically motivated FDI, Regulation 2019/452 of the
European Parliament and of the Council was adopted in 2019. The Regulation, based on Article 207(2)
TFEU, establishes a framework for the screening of FDI that forms a threat to the security and/or
public order of the Member States. While the Regulation mainly provides the means to Member
States to screen FDI, Article 8 of the Regulation empowers the European Commission to screen, and
eventually block the takeover of specific EU companies by foreign, non-EU companies.

Grazia (a fictitious Member State of the EU) whose economy is heavily dependent on FDI, might be hit
particularly hard by the adoption of Regulation 2019/452 and the new powers of the European
Commission. It fears that foreign investors will be discouraged from investing in Grazia, because the
screening of FDI is a long process. The Grazian government wishes to challenge the adoption of the
Regulation as it believes that the latter should be based on Article 64(2) TFEU instead of Article 207(2)
TFEU. The Grazian government, therefore, is preparing to take legal action against the Commission
shortly to repeal Regulation 2019/452.

Fenti, a private company established in a third, non-EU country intends to take over Centric, a leading
Neerlandian IT company providing services to several municipalities and the Central Bank of
Neerlandia (a fictitious EU Member State). The Neerlandian government decides to screen, and, after
an extensive assessment, prohibit this transaction. According to the Neerlandian officials, the
takeover of Centric by a foreign, non-EU company would jeopardise the security and/or public order
of Neerlandia since Centric is offering its services to public institutions.

Fenti wishes to challenge the decision of the Neerlandian government in the district court of Amstalia,
one of the regions in Neerlandia. Before the district court, Fenti uses the same argument as the
Grazian government: Regulation 2019/452 is invalid since it is based on Article 207(2) TFEU instead of
Article 64(2) TFEU.

Within this context, advise the following parties:

A. Advise the government of Grazia on the possibility of taking legal action against the European
Commission to challenge Regulation 2019/452.

B. Advise the district court of Amstalia on how it should decide the case concerning Fenti’s claim.

You might also like