Web-Companion "Essential EU Law in Charts" 4th ed 2018

Order: Subscribe to RSS feed
Details... Dear Reader of "Essential EU Law in Charts, 4th edition, 2018". Please take note of the following updates and corrigenda:

Update | p. 64

Page: 064 Chart Number: 2/25 Chart Title: Membership

In February 2019, the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” formally changed its name to “Republic of North Macedonia”. Accordingly, the 1st line under the 4th box, entitled “(Potential) Candidate States” on the right hand side must read:

 

Candidate States: Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey

Published: 2 April 2019

Typographical error | p. 65

Page: 065 Chart Number: 2/26 Chart Title: Accession to the Union

The box in the 4th row on the left hand side must read:

Generally: the Copenhagen eligibility criteria

Further essential conditions for_ eligibility agreed by the European Council (see Chart 3/4), as referred to in Art. 49 TEU

Published: 2 September 2018

Update | p. 67

Page: 067 Chart Number: 2/28 Chart Title: Withdrawal procedure

The box in the 4th row on the left-hand side must read:

 

Notification

Member State wishing to withdraw notifies the European Council of its intention. Notification can be withdrawn unilaterally; Wightman (2018).

E.g. UK on 29 March 2017: notification of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU and from Euratom

Published: 2 April 2019

Typographical error | p. 69

Page: 069 Chart Number: 2/30 Chart Title: Addressing issues raised by the withdrawal

The box in the 3rd row in the middle must read:

 

Through an alternative arrangement for post- membership relations

Various possibilities in theory, notably:

  • EFTA and EEA membership (“Norway model”);
  • Customs union (“Turkey model”);
  • Sectoral agreements (“Switzerland model”);
  • Free trade and investment agreement of the modern type (“Canada model”);
  • No special arrangement, WTO law only (“Hong Kong model”).

 

E.g. the UK Government:

  • Alternatives to Membership: possible models for the United Kingdom outside the European Union (March 2016);
  • The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union (February 2017): ‘an ambitious and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement’.
Published: 2 April 2019

Update | p. 80

Page: 080 Chart Number: 3/6 Chart Title: Structure of the European Parliament

In the 3rd box, entitled “The other Members of the European Parliament (MEP), 2009-2014”, the second last paragraph, reading “* Following Brexit (see Chart2/27),it is planned that some of the UK seats will be given to underrepresented Member States; the rest will be available for possible EU enlargement.” must be replaced with:

 

[…]

* With regard to Brexit, the Council adopted a decision on the future composition of the European Parliament; Decision 2018/937.

[…]

Published: 2 April 2019

Update | p. 128

Page: 128 Chart Number: 6/13 Chart Title: The autonomy of Union law

The box in the 3rd row must read:

 

„The autonomy of the Community/Union legal order”

First mentioned in Opinions 1/91 (EEA I) and 1/92 (EEA II); subsequently in other important rulings, e.g. Opinion 1/09 (Patent Court), Opinion 2/13 (Accession to the ECHR), Achmea (2018), Wightman (2018).

Rationale according to Achmea (2018):

  • The autonomy of Union law is linked to Art. 4(3) TEU (see Chart 1/12).
  • Para. 33: “[T]he autonomy of EU law with respect both to the law of the Member States and to international law is justified by the essential characteristics of the EU and its law, relating in particular to the constitutional structure of the EU and the very nature of that law. EU law is characterised by the fact that it stems from an independent source of law, the Treaties, by its primacy over the laws of the Member States, and by the direct effect of a whole series of provisions which are applicable to their nationals and to the Member States themselves. Those characteristics have given rise to a structured network of principles, rules and mutually interdependent legal relations binding the EU and its Member States reciprocally and binding its Member States to each other.”
Published: 2 April 2019

Typographical error | p. 154

Page: 154 Chart Number: 7/24 Chart Title: Data protection in the EU

The box in the 7th row (at the bottom) on the left hand side must read:

Formerly Directive 95/46

E.g. Schrems (2015), leading to the _ subsequent privacy shield regime; see
Chart 7/25

Published: 2 September 2018

Update | p. 162

Page: 162 Chart Number: 8/2 Chart Title: Free movement: only cross-border cases

The box at the bottom must read:

 Purely internal situations

  • Cases which are confined in all relevant aspects within a single Member State (i.e. without an international element) are not covered; e.g. Care insurance (2008); Ullens de Schooten (2016), Gibraltar Betting and Gaming (2017). Note, however, the special case of establishment under Directive 2006/123; Chart 8/54.
  • Reverse discrimination (i.e. worse treatment of a Member State’s own nationals or goods) is not an issue; e.g. Saunders (1979), in relation to the free movement for workers; Mathot (1987), in relation to the free movement of goods; compare with Rau (1982).
Published: 2 April 2019

Update | p. 170

Page: 170 Chart Number: 8/10 Chart Title: Customs duties

The boxes in the 3rd row must read:

 

Customs duties in the strict sense

  • Financial charges demanded at the time or by reason of the crossing of the border;
  • Imposed only on the product crossing the border (unilaterally applicable);
  • Independently of any consideration of the purpose for which they were introduced and the destination of the revenue obtained therefrom. 

Diamond Workers (1969)

Charges having equivalent effect

Any pecuniary charge, however small and whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense; Diamond Workers (1969), Capolongo (1973), Brzeziński (2006), SC Petrotel-Lukoil (2018).

Published: 2 April 2019

Typographical error | p. 174

Page: 174 Chart Number: 8/14 Chart Title: Relationship between Arts. 30 and 110 TFEU

The box in the 3rd row must read:

Mutually exclusive …

Interzuccheri (1977), Enirisorse (2003), Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten (2007): one and the same scheme cannot belong simultaneously to both categories; it is either a tax or a customs duty/charge having equivalent effect.

Published: 2 April 2019

Typographical error | p. 302

Page: 302 Chart Number: 11/3 Chart Title: Negative and positive integration: examples

The box in the 4th row in the middle must read:

In the very large field outside these directives, Treaty law applies; e.g. Hornbach-Baumarkt (2018), X and X (2018)

__________

Published: 2 April 2019

Update | p. 355

In the list of Decisions, insert:

Decision 2018/937 establishing the composition of the European Parliament, OJ 2018 L 165/1

Published: 2 April 2019

Update | p. 358

In the list of cases, insert:

Achmea (2018):          Case C‑284/16 Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v Achmea, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158     6/13

Published: 2 April 2019

Update | p. 386

In the list of cases, insert:

Wightman (2018):          Case C‑621/18 Andy Wightman and Others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2018:999     2/28, 6/13

Published: 2 April 2019

Update | p. 370

In the list of cases, insert:

Gingerbread (1962):          Joined Cases 2 and 3/62 Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium, ECLI:EU:C:1962:45    _ 8/14

Published: 2 April 2019