EUR-Charts

The title of Chart 9/43 should read:

Compensation for public service obligations and state aid        9/43 256

The following abbreviation must be added:

ESM   European Stability Mechanism

The forth box, last sentence, reads:

“… No actual examples exist yet; see Chart 2/11.”

However, it seems that the first enhanced cooperation in the history of the EU will concern the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. In March 2010, the Commission presented two proposals on this issue:

• Proposal for a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, COM[2010] 104 fin.
• Proposal for a Council Regulation (EU) implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, COM[2010] 104 fin.

In the Council meeting of 3-4 June 2010, the Justice Ministers agreed on key elements of the content of the legislation.

Following recent political development, the fourth box must read:

• Uniformity:
The same treaties are signed by all Member States.

• Diversity:
E.g. protocols and accession treaties may lead to differences relating to the applicability of the law (so-called “variable geometry”, “Europe of multiple speed”, “Europe à la carte”, “differentiated integration”).

Special in the EU:
Procedural rules for diversity. Since the Amsterdam revision (1997/1999; see Chart 2/26), there are rules for the creation of specific law: so-called “closer cooperation” or “enhanced cooperation” (Title IV of the TEU and Arts. 326 TFEU et seq.). First example: Decision 2010/405/EU (authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation), Regulation 1259/2010/EU (law applicable to divorce and legal separation); see Chart 2/11.

The text in the upper part of the Chart, above the three boxes, must read:

Case law of the CJEU

In particular explanations on the meaning of EU law (Art. 19(1) TEU); see Chapter 12

Following recent political development, the box in the fifth row in the middle must read:

1953: Western European Union

Later to become important due to the so-called “Petersberg tasks”, which were incorporated into Art. 43 TEU.

Note:
The WEU’s activities are planned to end by 30 June 2011, which date is expected to mark the end of the WEU.

Following recent legal developments, the fourth box must read:

Further:
New title on “Closer cooperation”, allowing for variable geometry/specific law for (groups of) Member States instead of uniform law for all; see Chart 1/7. Provides a formal mechanism for introducing specific law. This title allows (groups of) Member States to introduce further harmonising law amongst themselves but within the framework of the EU.

Note:
Not used for some time. In fact, Member States have actively sought to avoid using this procedure; e.g. the Prüm Convention (building on the Schengen law) was concluded outside the EU Treaty framework as an ordinary treaty under public international law. First example: Decision 2010/405/EU (authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation), Regulation 1259/2010/EU (law applicable to divorce and legal separation).

The  box entitled “Citing Articles of the EC Treaty” should read:

Citing Articles of the EC Treaty; e.g.:
• Art. 7a of the EEC Treaty = Art. 14 EC.
• Art. 13 of the EEC Treaty = (provision now deleted).

The last box, entitled “Note”, must read:

Note:

The “Treaty of Lisbon” as well as the “Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference” are officially published in the Official Journal (OJ 2007 C 306/01 and OJ 2007 C 306/231, respectively; consolidated versions: OJ 2008 C 115; new consolidated version of 30 March 2010: OJ 2010 C 83).

Following political development (decision for Croatia to join the EU on 1 July 2013), in the text underneath the title “Enlargement” add an additional line:

 

2013

EU and Euratom

Croatia

 

Following political development, the text underneath the title “Candidate States and applicants” must read:

 

EU and Euratom_

Candidate States: Turkey, _ , Macedonia, Iceland, Montenegro, Serbia Applicant States: Albania, _ , Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo (plus: a non-active application for membership by Switzerland)

 

On 24/25 March 2011, the European Council agreed on the first Treaty revision effected through a simplified revision procedure (European Council Decision 2011/199/EU). It decided to add to Art. 136 TFEU the following new paragraph:

“3. The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality.”

Therefore, the 5th box on the right hand side must read:

a) On Part Three of the TFEU:

• Proposal from a government of a Member State, the EP or the Commission to the European Council.

• The European Council consults the EP and the Commission and, in certain cases, the ECB.

• The European Council decides unanimously.

• Approval in the Member States.

First revision of this kind: insertion of Art. 136(3) TFEU, concerning the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in March 2011.

Following recent political development, the last box in the row on “Security / defence” must read:

WEU

Note:
The WEU’s activities are planned to end by 30 June 2011,
which date is expected to mark the end of the WEU.

The box entitled “Political groups in the European Parliament” should read:

Political groups in the European Parliament

The MEPs sit in political groups (fractions), based on their chosen political affiliation. There are currently seven political groups:

• European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (EPP) Group;
• Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) Group;
• Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE/ADLE) Group;
• The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) Group;
• European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Group;
• European United Left – Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) Group;
• Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) Group.

Following the adoption of transitional measures, the box in the 3rd row must read:

The other Members of the European Parliament (MEP), 2009-2014

735 additional members (in total 736), elected by the peoples of all Member States in direct elections, based on a proportional representation system, for five years. There is no uniform election procedure yet (see Art. 229(1) TFEU). In 2010, transitional measures have been adopted in order to raise the number of MEPs to 754 until the end of the 2009-2014 legislative period. For twelve Member States, the number of MEPs has changed, as provided for by the Intergovernmental Conference which approved the Lisbon Treaty.
Distribution of seats:

Germany	99
France	74
United Kingdom, Italy	73 each
Spain	54
Poland	51
Romania	33
Netherlands	26
Belgium, Czech Republic,Hungary, Greece, Portugal	22 each
Sweden	20
Austria	19
Bulgaria	18
Denmark, Finland, Slovakia	13 each
Ireland, Lithuania	12 each
Latvia	9
Slovenia	8
Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg	6 each
Malta	3

 

On the right to vote in special territories of the Member States, see e.g. Spain v UK (2006), concerning the UK and Gibraltar; Eman and Sevinger (2006), concerning the Netherlands and Aruba.

The box entitled “Members of the Council” states “configurations to be determined by the European Council”. By the end of June 2010, however, there has been no decision by the European Council on the Council configurations. At present, the configurations are based on a provisional list established by the General Affairs Council (Decision 2009/878/EU of 1 December 2009 establishing the list of Council configurations in addition to those referred to in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 16(6) of the Treaty on European Union, OJ 2009 L 315/46). The following configurations exist:

• General Affairs
• Foreign Affairs
• Economic and Financial Affairs
• Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
• Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs
• Competitiveness
• Transport, Telecommunications and Energy
• Agriculture and Fisheries
• Environment
• Education, Youth and Culture

Under the 2nd Barroso Commission, the DGs are structured as follows:

The box marked “Jurisdiction” should read:

Actions and proceedings according to Art. 256 TFEU et seq., see Chapter 12.

• In principle, no jurisdiction in the field of CFSP, Art. 275 TFEU.

• No jurisdiction to review the validity of proportionality of operations carried out by the law enforcement services of a Member State or the exercise of Member State responsibilities with regard to the maintenance or law and order and the safeguarding of internal security, Art. 276 TFEU.

The last box must read:

Guidelines concerning their practical application:
Protocol No 1 on the role of the national Parliaments in the EU,
Protocol No 2 on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

Regarding the national Parliaments:

• So-called “yellow card”: national Parliaments may force the Commission to reconsider a legislative proposal on the ground of a breach of subsidiarity, Art. 7(2) of Protocol No 2;
• “Orange card”: following reasoned opinions by the national parliaments, the matter may end up being referred to the Council (of Ministers) and Parliament, Art. 7(3) of Protocol No 2;
• The matter may lead to annulment proceedings before the ECJ, Art. 8 of Protocol No 2; see Chart 12/5.

The first box in the row entitled “Field of action” should read:

“Internal market”, except:
• Fiscal provisions;
• Free movement of persons;
• Rights and interests of employed persons.

In the box entitled “Ordinary legislative procedure (codecision)“, the fifth bullet point from the bottom should read:

•   …

•    Art. 157(3) TFEU: sex equality in employment;

•    …

Following the accession of Croatia, the distribution of weighted votes has changed. Hence, the box in the 2nd row must read:

System based on the weighting of votes

Weighting of votes roughly according to the size of the Member States:

Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom	29
Spain, Poland	27
Romania	14
The Netherlands	13
Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Portugal	12
Austria, Bulgaria, Sweden	10
Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Finland	7
Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia	4
Malta	3
TOTAL	352

In the same vein, in the 4th row, the box in the middle must read:

In any case:
260 votes

At the least 260 votes must be cast in favour, i.e. 73.9%.

The last box to the left must read:

Commission, social partners, Council (of
Ministers): social partners procedure

Union implementation of Framework
Agreements of the European Social Partners.

Due to technical changes in the web-hosting service, the internet address for the Web-Companion as published in the book:

http://webcompanion_essential.eur-charts.eu

is no longer in service. Use the following internet address instead:

http://webcompanion–essential.eur-charts.eu

The last box at the right hand side must read:

Regulations, directives and decisions adopted by non-legislative procedure.

E.g.:
• Commission acts pursuant to Art. 290(1) TFEU (delegated powers, Regulation 182/2011/EU), e.g. Commission regulations in the field of agriculture;
• Directives adopted through the social partners procedure, Arts. 154 and 155 TFEU; see Chart 5/10;
• European Council and Council decisions pursuant to Art. 31 TEU (CFSP decisions);
• European Council decisions pursuant to Art. 236 TFEU (Council configurations, presidency of Council configurations); see Chart 3/7.

Regarding the second box there is new national case law in France. Hence, the last sentence should read:

• The EEC Treaty did not mention the practical effect of Community law in the national legal orders in relation to individuals.
• According to the ECJ: in the event of a conflict between national law and EEC law/measures which grant individuals rights, the national courts must protect rights of individuals under EEC law and the right of individuals to rely directly on EEC law in a national court. Reasoning: as distinct from traditional public international law, EEC law concerns not only states, but also individuals; Van Gend en Loos (1963).
• Lisbon Treaty: no mention of direct effect in the Treaties. Assumption that the doctrine of primacy now relates to all binding EU law that grants rights to individuals.

In practice, direct effect is usually observed; very few obvious problems in the Member States, except e.g. the French “Conseil d’État” in Cohn-Bendit (1978); revoked by Perreux (2009).

The box in the fourth row at the right hand side must read:

The measure must grant rights to one or several individuals
Two examples:
• Dahms (2005): a provision in a directive stating that awards and medals may be featured on the labels of table wines does not grant rights to individual consumers/traders;
• Janecek (2008): a provision in a directive obliging the Member States to draw up an environmental action plan for the protection of public health implies the right of individuals directly concerned by the health risks to require the national authorities to draw up an action plan.

The box in the fifth row at the left hand side must read:

Duty of the national court to interpret the national law, as far as possible, in the light of EU law. This requires a certain flexibility within the national law (i.e. room for interpretation).

• Von Colson and Kamann (1984), Marleasing (1990), based on Art. 288 TFEU and Art. 4 TEU, in relation to what was then EEC law;
• Pupino (2005), based on the EU’s obligation to respect fundamental rights, in relation to what was then EU law (third pillar). Duty of the Member States to compensate for damage caused by national law infringing EU law. No explicit Treaty provision, based on case law: Francovich (1991).

The 2nd box, entitled “Background”, must read:

Background

Art. 3(4) TEU

“The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.”

The box entitled entitled “Some important aspects” (last row, to the right-hand side) should read:

Some important aspects:
• A single monetary policy;
• The European System of Central Banks (see Chart 3/12) defines and implements the monetary policy;
• Monopoly of the European Central Bank to issue euro banknotes;
• Conditions for the adoption of the euro, as stated in Art. 140(1) TFEU.
Note:
Not all Member States have adopted the euro; see Chart 1/7.

On 24/25 March 2011, the European Council (see Chart 3/4) agreed on the first Treaty revision effected through a simplified revision procedure (European Council Decision 2011/199/EU). It decided to add to Art. 136 TFEU the following new paragraph:

“3. The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality.”

Further to this decision to change the Treaty, the European Council has agreed on the need for euro-area Member States to establish a permanent stability mechanism, namely the so-called European Stability Mechanism (ESM) which will be activated by mutual agreements, if indispensable to safeguarding the financial stability of the euro area as a whole (see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/120296.pdf#page=22).

Both the Treaty revision and the establishment of the ESM were unsuccessfully challenged in the case of Pringle (2012).

In December 2011, the so-called “Six-Pack” entered into force. Subsequently, at the end of May 2013, the so-called “Two-Pack” entered into force.

As an additional development, in March 2012, 25 Member States (with the exclusion of UK and CZ) signed a so-called “Fiscal Compact” (“Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance”), aimed at strengthening fiscal discipline and introducing stricter surveillance within the euro area, in particular by establishing a balanced rule.

Therefore, the last box on the left hand side underneath the box “Economic policy, Arts. 120 TFEU et seq.” must read:

Some important aspects:

• Coordination of their economic policies by the Member States;
• Recommendation by the European Council on broad guidelines and early warning mechanism in relation to defaulting Member States;
• Obligation of the Member States to avoid excessive government deficits; excessive deficit procedure under Art. 126 TFEU, firmed up by the Stability and Growth Pact: Protocol No 12, Regulations 1466/97/EC, 1467/97/EC and 479/2009/EC, as revised by four acts of the so-called “Six-Pack” (six interlinked legislative acts, entered into force on 13 December 2011): Regulations 1173/2011/EU, 1175/2011/EU, 1177/2011/EU Directive 2011/85/EU (the other two measures of the Six-Pack being Regulations 1174/2011/EU and 1176/2011/EU) and the so-called “Two-Pack”; Excessive deficit procedure (2004);
• A permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM), Art. 136(3) TFEU (decided on in March 2011; see Chart 2/27); Pringle (2012);
• Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, so-called “Fiscal Compact” (signed in March 2012 by 25 Member States; entered into force on 1 January 2013).

Note:
Elements of the so-called “Six-Pack”:

• Directive 2011/85/EU on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States, OJ 2011 L 306/41
• Regulation 1173/2011/EU on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area, OJ 2011 L 306/1
• Regulation 1174/2011/EU on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area, OJ 2011 L 306/8
• Regulation 1175/2011/EU amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies, OJ 2011 L 306/12
• Regulation 1176/2011/EU on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, OJ 2011 L 306/25
• Regulation 1177/2011/EU amending Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, OJ 2011 L 306/33

Elements of the so-called “Two-Pack”:

• Regulation 472/2013/EU on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability, OJ 2013 L 140/1
• Regulation 473/2013/EU on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area, OJ 2013 L 140/11

Furthermore, the last box on the right hand side underneath the box “Monetary policy, Arts. 127 TFEU et seq.” must read:

Some important aspects:
• A single monetary policy;
• The European System of Central Banks (see Chart 3/12) defines and implements the monetary policy;
• Monopoly of the European Central Bank to issue euro banknotes;
• Conditions for the adoption of the euro, as stated in Art. 140(1) TFEU.
___

Note:
Not all Member States have adopted the euro; see Chart 1/7.

[Please note that in the 3rd Reprint 2013 of the book the ESM and the Pringle (2012) case are wrongly mentioned in the context of monetary policy.]

The title of the chart which currently reads:

Structure of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

must read:

Fundamental Rights

The second box should read:

• Equality/equal treatment requires that what is like (comparable) be treated alike whereas that which is different be treated differently according to the degree of difference, unless there is objective justification; e.g. Swedish Match (2004), Eman and Sevinger (2006), SPCM (2009).

• Accordingly, discrimination may arise through the application of different rules to comparable situations or the application of the same rule to different situations; e.g. Italian Refrigerators (1963), Merida (2004), Commission v Spain (2004).

The title of the third box  entitled “Wider scope of free movement law:” should read:

Rights and duties, Art. 20(2) TFEU

EU citizens enjoy the rights conferred on them by the Treaties and are also subject to the duties imposed by
the Treaties.

Regarding the box entitled “Political rights” (bottom, in the middle), first bullet point, Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation 211/2011.

Accordingly the box at the bottom in the middle must read as follows:

• Art. 11 TEU, citizens’ initiative: right of not less than 1 million citizens of a significant number of Member States to invite the Commission to submit proposals for legal acts. Procedures and conditions: Art. 24 TFEU, Regulation 211/2011/EU.
• Arts. 20(2)(b) and 22 TFEU: right of citizens to both vote and stand in communal elections in the host Member State and in elections to the EP; e.g. Commission v Belgium (1998).
• Arts. 20(2)(d) and 24 TFEU: making petitions to the EP, applications to the Ombuds- man and writing to EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies.

The box  beginning with “Wider scope of free movement law:” (5th row, first box to the left-hand side) should read:

Wider scope of free movement law:

Through Art. 21(1) TFEU, the Court has brought new issues within the scope of free movement law.

E.g. job seekers allowance as part of the right of access to work; Collins (2004), Ioannidis (2005), Vatsouras (2009).

The box  beginning with “Right to equal treatment under Art. 18 TFEU …” (5th row, box in the middle) should read:

Right to equal treatment under Art. 18 TFEU (focus on nationality; see Chart 7/15):
In relation to various different issues; e.g.:

• Child-raising allowance not falling under other EU law; Martinez Sala (1998);
• Social assistance benefit; Trojani (2004);
• Student loan; Bidar (2005);
• Taxation of the economically inactive; Commission v Portugal (2006), Turpeinen (2006) _.

Further, the box  beginning with “Increasing importance of Art. 20(1) TFEU …” (5th row, last box to the right-hand side) should read:

Increasing importance of Art. 21(1) TFEU by itself, i.e. without reference to other EU law:

E.g.:

• Direct effect of Art. 21(1) TFEU; Baumbast (2002);
• Prohibition of “restrictions to the freedoms conferred by Article 21 TFEU on every citizen”, unless there is an objective justification; De Cuyper (2006), Tas-Hagen and Tas (2006), Rüffler (2009).

The text to the right of the first diamond-shaped box  (“Does the case fall within the
field of application (scope) of EU free movement law?”) must read as follows:

E.g. free movement for workers, Art. 45(1) and (4) TFEU:
• Is there a cross-border element?
• Does the case involve a worker?
• Does it involve issues other than access to employment in the public service?

The text in the third row at the left hand side must read as follows:

Positive examples

• Agricultural products, such as strawberries; Art. 38(1) TFEU; Strawberries (1997);
• Animals; Bluhme (1998); note, however, Art. 13 TFEU on animal welfare;
• Electricity; PreussenElektra (2001);
• Gold; Gold and Gold Alloy (2004);
• Coins that are no longer legal tender; Thompson (1978);
• Recyclable waste; Wallonian Waste (1992).
• Exceptionally even items that cannot be valued in money; Wallonian Waste (1992), in relation to non-recyclable and non-reusable waste transported to another country for the purpose of its treatment or its disposal; also e.g. Stadtgemeinde Frohnleiten (2007)

The box  in the second line, third box from the left, reading:

Is it an
MEEQR having
equivalent effect
(Art.30 TFEU)?

should read:

Is it a
charge having
equivalent effect
(Art.30 TFEU)?

The box  entitled “Measures having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction (MEEQR)” (fourth row, on the right hand side) should read:

Measures having an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction (MEEQR)

Defined through important case law:
• Dassonville (1974) – definition;
• Cassis de Dijon (1979) – clarification;
• Keck (1993) – further clarification;
• Towing Trailers (2009) – further clarification.
See Chart 8/19, Chart 8/20, Chart 8/21, Chart 8/22

The box  entitled “Legal basis provisions” (third row, right-hand side) should read:

Legal basis provisions

• Art. 43 TFEU: common agricultural policy, including replacing a national market organisation with a common organisation;
• Art. 44 TFEU: countervailing charges.

The box  beginning with “The Common Market Organisation (CMO) as …” (forth row, right-hand side) should read:

The Common Market Organisation (CMO) as the most common instrument: Art. 40(1)(c) TFEU

Typically characterised by price regulation, production rules, intervention mechanisms, import and export regimes.

E.g.:

• The banana dispute: WTO panel decisions; numerous ECJ decisions, in particular the Bananas WTO case (1995);
• Critique on the sugar regime: Court of Auditors Sugar Report; WTO panel decision; see Chart 3/13.

New single CMO: Regulation 1234/2007/EC (covers potatoes only partially).

The box entitled “Competition law (see Chapter 9)” (last row, right-hand side) should read:

Competition law (see Chapter 9)

The competition rules apply only to the extent determined by the European Parliament and the Council (of Ministers), Art. 42 TFEU.

The box entitled “Rights under Title V of Part three of the TFEU” (second row, third column) should read:

Rights under Title V of Part three of the TFEU

 

E.g.:
• Directive 2003/86/EC (family reunification)
• Directive 2003/109/EC (status of long-term residents)
• Directive 2009/50/EC (EU Blue Card Directive)
• Directive 2011/98/EU (Single Permit Directive)

In spring 2011, Regulation 1612/68/EEC was replaced by Regulation 492/2011/EU on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141/12). The new Regulation is simply a codification (i.e. a restatement) of the old one, as it results after numerous amendments, including in particular from the changes brought about by Directive 2004/38/EC (though this latter Directive, Arts. 10 and 11 of Regulation 1612/68/EEC on family rights were abolished).

In spring 2011, Regulation 1612/68/EEC was replaced by Regulation 492/2011/EU on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141/12). The new Regulation is simply a codification (i.e. a restatement) of the old one, as it results after numerous amendments, including in particular from the changes brought about by Directive 2004/38/EC (though this latter Directive, Arts. 10 and 11 of Regulation 1612/68/EEC on family rights were abolished), plus a certain renumbering. Hence, the box at the left hand side in the 3rd row must read:

Non-discrimination/equal treatment on grounds of nationality

Art. 45(1) and (2) TFEU, Arts. 7-10 _ of Regulation 492/2011/EU: right to equal treatment in relation to various areas; e.g.:
• Employment;
• Remuneration and other conditions;
• Dismissal (including reinstatement and reemployment);
• Social advantages;
• Tax advantages;
• Access to vocational schools and training centres;
• Membership of trade unions and the resultant rights;
• Housing, including property ownership;
• Access to educational, apprenticeship and vocational training for children.

The box entitled “Activities connected with the exercise of official authority, Art. 51(1) TFEU” (last row, on the right-hand side) should read:

Limits the right to free movement (exemption), thus narrow interpretation; Commission v Greece (1988):

• Only activities which in themselves involve a direct and specific connection with the exercise of official authority; Reyners (1974), Thijssen (1993);

• Even where private bodies do exercise the powers of a public authority, Art. 51(1) TFEU does not apply where, under the law, those private bodies are to be supervised by the public authority; Commission v Portugal (2009).

E.g. does not include the profession of attorneys-at-law as a whole, nor entire professions generally; Reyners (1974).

The box entitled “Primary establishment” (last row, on the left-hand side) should read:

Primary establishment

Taking up and pursuing an economic activity in another Member State:

• Natural persons: e.g. leaving one Member State in order to set up office elsewhere; Reyners (1974);
• Companies: e.g. merging with a company in another Member State; SEVIC (2005).

Limit: national rules on the “nationality” of a company; Cartesio (2008), concerning the moving of the seat while wishing to remain under law of the first Member State; as opposed to Indus (2011), concerning a legitimate exit tax in the event of a company’s moving the registered office.

The box entitled “Substantive provisions:” (third row, on the left-hand side) should read:

Substantive provisions:
• Arts. 56 and 57 TFEU: free movement of services;
• Art. 62 TFEU in conjunction with Art. 52(1) TFEU: derogations.
Directly effective right to free movement even in the absence of facilitating legislation, “at least with regard to nationality and residence requirements”; Van Binsbergen (1974).

The Topic sentence must read:

In 2006, a Directive on services in the internal market was adopted. Its main practical contribution appears
to be rules on administrative simplification.

The first box must read:

Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market

Note:

Contrary to its title, the Directive addresses both services provided in a temporary context (“services”) and services provided in a permanent context (“establishment”).

The correct number is used in charts 8/44 and 8/49 (overviews on the relevant law in the fields of establishment and services).

The box in the fourth row at the right hand side must read:

Main substantive provisions in relation to (temporary) services, Arts. 16-27

Rules on:
• Freedom to provide services, including additional derogations and case-by-case derogations;
• Rights of recipients of services;
• Quality of services.

The 1st box, currently reading “EU law on the mutual recognition of diplomas”, must read:

Relationship between Arts. 45, 49 and 56/57 TFEU

The box entitled “Legal basis provisions”, 3rd row on the right, must read:

Legal basis provisions:

• Art. 64(2) and (3) TFEU: for measures regarding movement to or from third countries;
• Art. 65(4) TFEU: for Commission or Council (of Ministers) decisions regarding restrictive tax measures taken by Member States concerning third countries;
• Arts. 66 and 75 TFEU: for safeguard measures in relation to third countries.

Note:

Only in relation to third countries.

The last box, entitled “Note”, must read:

Notes:

• National measures must be proportionate; Sanz de Lera (1995).
• Regarding proportionality, the same principles apply as for the free movement of persons and services, in particular in relation to prior authorisation schemes (see Chart 8/37); e.g. Sint Servatius (2009).

The title of Chart 9/43 should read:

Compensation for public service obligations and state aid        9/43 256

The box entitled “Functional link with free movement” (5th row) must read:

Functional link with free movement

EU competition law and EU law on free movement are functionally linked:

• For EU competition law to apply, the conduct in question must have a (potential) effect on trade between Member States (so-called “inter-state” or “internal market element”; see Chart 9/7, Chart 9/20, Chart 9/39).
• EU competition law and free movement law can apply simultaneously; e.g. Essent Netwerk (2008), Presidente del Consiglio (2009).

The 2nd box must read:

Importance of the definition of the relevant market

• For the purposes of Art. 102 TFEU, the proper definition of the relevant market is a necessary precondition for any judgment as to allegedly anti-competitive behaviour; Volkswagen (2000); see Chart 9/21;
• In other contexts (e.g. Art. 101 TFEU, merger control under Regulation 139/2004/EC and sectoral competition law), it may be an important element, e.g. in relation to the effect on trade between Member States and on competition, and in relation to product_turnover and market shares; Heubach (2005).

The 3rd box must read:

Examples of joint action that does not fall under Art. 101(1) TFEU:
• Parent company and subsidiary, if the subsidiary has no real freedom to determine its course of action in the market, and if the conduct is concerned merely with the internal allocation of tasks; Centrafarm (1974), Viho (1996);
• Collective agreements between employers and workers that pursue social policy objectives; Albany (1999), Van der Woude (2000);
• Principle and agent relationships where the agent is not an independent economic operator; CEEES (2006), CEPSA (2008).

The text in the box in the 3rd row, on the left hand side, must read:

Concerns the aims pursued by the agreement, in the light of the economic context in which the agreement is to be applied; Compagnie Royale Asturienne (1984).

In examining a concrete case in relation to the competition element, the purpose is to be analysed first; Société Technique Minière (1966).

An agreement that may affect trade between Member States and that has an anti-competitive object constitutes, by its nature and independently of any concrete effect that it may have, an appreciable restriction on competition (no de minimis rule); Expedia (2012).

The text in the box entitled “Vertical agreements” (3rd row, on the right hand side) must read:

Vertical agreements: ≤15%

I.e. agreements between non-competitors; see Chart C8

Threshold of 15% _ market share on any of the relevant markets affected by the agreement.

The European Commission in 2010 renewed an imported part of  its legislation on block exemptions.

Therefore, the 2nd box on the right side, entitled “Block exemption regulations”, must read:

Block exemption regulations (BERs)

• Vertical restraints: Regulation 330/2010/EU, with Commission Guidelines (2010); see Chart 9/17);

• Specialisation agreements: Regulation 1218/2010/EU, with Commission Guidelines on horizontal co-operation agreements (2010);

• Research and development: Regulation 1217/2010/EU, with Commission Guidelines on horizontal co-operation agreements (2010);

• Motor vehicle distribution: Regulation 461/2010/EU;

• Insurance: Regulation 267/2010/EU, with an Explanatory Communication from the Commission (2010);

• Technology transfer: Regulation 772/2004/EC, with a Commission Notice (2004);

• Liner shipping: Regulation 906/2009/EC;

• Air passenger tariffs and slot allocation: Regulation 1459/2006/EC (transitional regime).

Further, the 3rd box on the right side, entitled “Other regulations containing general exemptions”, must read:

Other regulations containing general exemptions

• Agriculture: Regulation 1184/2006/EC;
• Transport: Regulations 169/2009/EC (road, rail, inland waterway) and 487/2009/EC (air).

The European Commission has renewed the Block Exemption Regulation on vertical restraints. Therefore replace the full page 230 with the replacement chart “rectified Chart 9|17“

The box in the 3rd row, entitled “Terms of the Regulation, Arts. 2-8” must read:

Terms of the Regulation, Arts. 2-8

In principle, everything that is not prohibited (i.e. hardcore restrictions, excluded restrictions) is allowed, if:

• The _ market shares of both the supplier and _ the buyer in their respective relevant markets do not exceed 30%;

• In the case of associations: if no individual member of the association, together with its connected undertakings, has a total annual turnover exceeding EUR 50 million.

In cases above the thresholds, individual exemption may be possible under Art. 101(3) TFEU; see Chart 9/18.

In the box in the 5th row, entitled “Consequence for the Member States”, the last reference (to Chart 9/42) must be deleted. Therefore, the box must read:

Consequence for the Member States

Conduct meeting the above conditions is contrary to EU law (“prohibited as incompatible with the internal market”, Arts. 101 and 102 TFEU) …

… unless an exemption or a derogation applies; see Chart 9/16, Chart 9/36.

The box entitled “Temporary framework in the economic crisis” (2nd row, in the middle) must read:

Temporary framework in the economic crisis

• The Commission Communications: Temporary Union framework for state aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (_ 2010 _): Based on Art. 107(3)(b) TFEU, the Commission _ considered temporary state aid acceptable if it did not exceed a cash grant of EUR 500,000 per undertaking and if it fulfilled certain further criteria.

• Commission Communication on the application, from 1 January 2012, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis: The Commission extends the crisis rules for banks.

The box entitled “Art. 106(2) TFEU” (2nd row, in the middle) should read:

Art. 106(2) TFEU

See Chart 9/36, Chart 9/42

The box entitled “Harmonisation” (bottom, right hand side) should read:

Harmonisation

In certain fields, Regulation 1370/2007/EC applies instead of Art. 93 TFEU:
• National and international operation of public passenger transport services by rail and other track-based modes and by road;
• If the Member States so chose: public passenger transport by inland waterways and national sea waters (without prejudice to Regulation 3577/92/EEC on maritime transport).

Recent case law (Deutsche Post (2010)) has confirmed that Altmark (2003) concerns the very definition of state aid under Art. 107(1) TFEU in relation to public service obligations, rather than Art. 106(2) TFEU. Therefore, the following parts in the chart have to be adapted:

The chart title should read:

Compensation for public service obligations and state aid

The topic sentence should read:

Compensation for public service obligations does not fall under Art. 107(1) TFEU provided that the conditions defined by the ECJ in the important Altmark (2003) decision are met.

The box reading “Art. 106(2) TFEU and state aid” (top) should read:

Compensation for public service obligations

The box entitled “The ECJ’s decision in the Altmark (2003) case” (2nd from top) should read:

The ECJ’s decision in the Altmark (2003) case

Compensation for public service obligations does not amount to state aid (i.e. it is not caught by Art. 107(1) TFEU) and does not have to be notified (see Chart 9/44) to the Commission if the following conditions are met:

There are new measures on State aid in the form of public service compensation. Accordingly, the last box, entitled “Follow up on Altmark (2003)” must read:

Follow up on Altmark (2003)

• For certain types of public service obligations that do not meet the Altmark conditions: Commission Decision 2012/21/EU on State aid in the form of public service compensation (Art. 107(1) TFEU applies but there is an exemption under Art. 106(2) TFEU; no notification is required) (replaces Decision 2005/842/EC); see also Commission Communication: European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2012) and Commission Communication on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of SGEI (2012);
• For other cases, with the exception of transport and broadcasting: Commission framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011) (notification is required);
• Transport: in particular Regulation 1370/2007/EC (see Chart C52); broadcasting: Commission Communication on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (2009).

Add recent case law: The box entitled “effect of notification” must read:

Effect of notification

• The aid cannot be granted before being approved by the Commission.

• Non-notified aid is unlawful and in principle must be paid back; e.g. Deufil (1978), CELF I (2008), CELF II (2010).

• Following notification, there is a stand-still obligation on the Member States which is enforced by the national courts.

The first box should read:

Social policy title
Title X in Part Three of the TFEU, consisting of Arts. 151-161 TFEU

(pre-Lisbon: “social policy chapter”, Part Three, Title XI, Chapter 1 of the EC Treaty;
originally Part Three, Title III, Chapter 1 of the EEC Treaty)

The box in the last row at the right hand side must read:

Various directives adopted in different contexts; e.g.:
• Prohibition on the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships: Directive 1999/70/EC;
• Prescription of four months of (unpaid) parental leave for workers; Directive 2010/18/EU (as of 8 March 2012, until then three months: Directive 96/34/EC).

The box entitled “Specific social law: The social policy chapter” should read:

Specific social law:
The chapter on “Social Provisions”

Arts. 117 et seq. of the EEC Treaty
(chapter 1 in the social policy title)

The new directive on self-employment was adopted on 7 July 2010. Accordingly the first box in the 5th row should read:

• Directive 79/7/EEC (statutory social security);
• Directive 2010/41/EU (self-employment).

The new directive on parental leave was adopted on 8 March 2010. Accordingly the third box in the 5th row should read:

• Directive 2010/18/EU (Parental Leave Directive);
• Directive 97/81/EC (Part-time Work Directive).

In spring 2011, Regulation 1612/68/EEC was replaced by Regulation 492/2011/EU on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141/12). The new Regulation is simply a codification (i.e. a restatement) of the old one, as it results after numerous amendments, including in particular from the changes brought about by Directive 2004/38/EC (though this latter Directive, Arts. 10 and 11 of Regulation 1612/68/EEC on family rights were abolished), plus a certain renumbering. Hence, the box in the 2nd row must read:

Comprehensive application: Art. 18(1) TFEU and provisions on free movement

In all fields of EU law, prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality; see Chart 7/15. Includes social issues; e.g. social advantages under Art. 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011/EU; see Chart 8/42.

A new directive on self-employment was adopted on 7 July 2010. Accordingly the box entitled “Comparatively narrow: sex equality law” (4th row) should read:

Comparatively narrow: sex equality law

Prohibition of sex discrimination:
• Art. 157 TFEU: equal pay and positive action;
• Directive 2006/54/EC (Recast Directive): employment and occupation, including occupational social security;
• Directive 79/7/EEC: statutory social security;
• Directive 2010/41/EU: self-employment, including agriculture;
• Directive 2004/113/EC (Goods and Services Directive): access to, and supply of, goods and services available to the public.

The box in the last row, to the very right, must read:

Direct discrimination:
• Art. 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC (age discrimination); Mangold (2005);
• Art. 4(5) of Directive 2004/113/EC (sex discrimination, in relation to goods and services).

In the last row at the right hand side, add a new box:

Sexual orientation

There is a general principle of equal treatment or non-discrimination on  grounds of sexual orientation.

Römer (2011)

A codified version of the audiovisual media services was adopted on 10 March 2010. Accordingly the notes box at the bottom should read:

Notes:

• After Cassis de Dijon (1979) and through the development of the definition of restrictions as a legal concept by the ECJ, the Cassis de Dijon principle also applies in other fields of EU Treaty law; see Chart 8/35, Chart 8/63.

• The Cassis de Dijon principle also applies in the framework of certain secondary legislation; e.g. Art. 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC (e-commerce Directive); Arts. 2 and 3 of Directive 2010/13/EU (Audiovisual Media Services Directive).

The Title line of the entire chapter must of course read:

Chapter 12 Enforcement

as correctly mentioned in the Outline table of contents (p. 8 ) and in the Table of contents (p. 14)

Regarding the box entitled “For non-privileged applicants: only certain types of acts” (bottom, on the right-hand side), second bullet point, a case involving the definition of the terms “regulatory act” has been decided by the General Court: Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, order of 6 September 2011, n.y.r.

In a previous order of 30 April 2010 concerning the application for interim measures, the General Court stated (para. 44 et seq. of the Order): “[…] should Article 263 TFEU be applicable to the present case, the admissibility of the main action could depend on the interpretation of the concept of “regulatory act” in the fourth paragraph of that provision. In that regard, as the Parliament and the Council point out, that category of act would probably have to be defined in relation to that of “legislative acts”, subject to the particular circumstance, in the present case, that Regulation No 1007/2009 was not adopted in accordance with the legislative procedure laid down in Article 294 TFEU. […] in the context of the interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the question would arise as to the circumstances in which a regulatory act does not require implementing measures.” The General Court observed that the Courts of the European Union had not, as yet, had the opportunity to rule on these issues “which are, moreover, of some legal complexity”.

On 6 September 2011, the General Court (7th Chamber, extended composition consisting of 5 judges) issued an order deciding of the admissibility of the action in the Inuit case, and more specifically about the question of whether the Regulation at issue in this case (Regulation 1007/2009 on trade in seal products) is a „regulatory act“ within the meaning of Art. 263(4) TFEU. The Court, relying on a literal, historical and teleological interpretation approach, decided that the term „regulatory act“ within the meaning of Art. 263(4) TFEU covers „all acts of general application apart from legislative acts“. In the context of the historical interpretation element, the Court relied on the history of the new part of Art. 263 TFEU, i.e. the corresponding provision in the Constitutional Treaty, and the meaning given to it by the Praesidium of the Convention. As for the term “legislative act”, following the Lisbon revision, under Art. 289 TFEU legislative acts are acts adopted in a legislative procedure, i.e. in a procedure in which the European Parliament and the Council jointly adopt the act in question. That was the case in relation to the specific regulation in question in the Inuit case, which had been adopted on the basis of Art. 95 EC, and thus in the ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision).

An appeal against the Court’s decision is pending (Case C-583/11 P).

In order to reflect the above case-law, Chart 12/7 has been updated and a new Chart 12/7a has been created. They are available for download here.

The fifth box (underneath the box “Acts must have legal effects“) must read:

Art. 263 TFEU: “acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties”.

Meaning: measures with legal effects which are binding on the applicant and are capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his or her legal position; Bank Austria (2006), Vischim (2009).

Examples of non-reviewable acts:
• Informal communications such as telex messages; Sucrimex (1980); unless they have legal effects; France v Commission (1997);
• Internal instructions, unless in reality they constitute a decision; France v Commission (1990);
• Preliminary, preparatory or intermediary measures; e.g. IBM (1981), Fern Olivieri (2003), Reynolds Tobacco (2006), Cestas (2008).

The box entitled “Challenging the definition” (right column, fourth row) should read:

Challenging the definition

• Opinion of AG Jacobs in UPA (2002): proceedings before national courts may not provide effective judicial protection. Therefore, reconsideration of the case law on standing under Art. 263 TFEU; less strict conditions would be appropriate.

• GC (then: CFI): broader approach in Jégo-Quéré (2002).

The box entitled “But: ECJ adheres to its approach” (right column, fifth row) should read:

But: _CJ adheres to its approach

UPA (2002), Rothley (2004), Jégo–Quéré (2004).

Main argument: the ECJ cannot change the Treaty.

.

.

The box in the 3rd row, at the right hand side, must read:

E.g.:
• Lack of consultation with the EP in the consultation procedure (see Chart 5/8); Roquette Frères (1980);
• Refusal of information; Timex (1985);
• In the enforcement procedure (see Chart 12/14), the Commission issued a letter of formal notice relating to the failure to transpose a directive in respect of which the time-limit for implementation had not yet expired; Commission v Luxembourg (2005).

On this Chart, all references to “an EU institution” and “the institution” must read “institution, body, office or agency“.

On this Chart, the reference to “an institution” (fourth row, on the right-hand side) must read “institution, body, office or agency“.

The box in the 3rd row at the right hand side must read:

Urgent procedure

So-called “PPU”: Procédure préjudicielle d’urgence

The last box on the right-hand side must read:

Inapplicability of the measure in question in the case at hand (not nullity); Wöhrmann (1962).

E.g. in an action brought for annulment of a decision which is based on a regulation, the _ illegality of the regulation means that the decision must be annulled.

Regarding the box entitled “Sufficiently serious breach” (middle, on the right-hand side), second-last bullet point, the reference to Schneider should read as follows:

Sufficiently serious breach

Test based on the discretion available to the institution: “whether the […] institution concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion”; Brasserie du Pêcheur (1996).

• Therefore: the fact that a legislative act is null and void is not by itself sufficient; Bayerische HNL (1978).
• But: where the institution has only a considerably reduced, or even no, discretion, the mere infringement of EU law may be sufficient; Bergaderm (2000), Fresh Marine (2003).

Some positive examples:

• Agricultural decision by the Commission (bananas); Camar (2000, 2002, 2005);
• Merger decision (refusal) by the Commission; Schneider (2007, 2009);
• Delay by the GC in rendering a judgment; Der Grüne Punkt (2009)

The box in the 4th row at the right hand side must read:

Sufficiently serious breach

Factors to be taken into account include:
• The clarity and precision of the rule breached;
• The measure of discretion left by the rule to the authorities;
• Whether the infringement and the damage caused was intentional or involuntary;
• Whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable;
• The fact that the position taken by an EU institution may have contributed towards the omission, the adoption or retention of national measures or practices contrary to EU law.

A breach of EU law is certainly sufficiently serious if it has persisted despite a judgment finding the infringement, or a preliminary ruling or settled case-law from which it is clear that the conduct constitutes an infringement.

Brasserie du Pêcheur (1996), Köbler (2003)

Replace the following entry:

Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed in 1997, OJ 2007 C 306 (“Lisbon Treaty”, consolidated versions: OJ 2008 C 115)

by:

Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed in 2007, OJ 2007 C 306 (“Lisbon Treaty”, consolidated versions: OJ 2008 C 115; new consolidated version of 30 March 2010: OJ 2010 C 83)

Due to republication of certain official texts in the Official Journal in March 2010, the list under the heading „I.1. Community and EU Treaties, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Protocols and Declarations“ on pp. 324 and 325 must be adapted in order to read as follows:

• Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, signed in 1951, not published in the OJ, see: http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/treaties_founding.htm, English translation: 261 U.N.T.S. 143 (expired 23 July 2002; “Paris Treaty”)

• Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, signed in 1957, not published in the OJ in its original version, see: http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/treaties_founding.htm, English translation: 298 U.N.T.S. 169 (as amended; “Rome Treaty”), most recent codified version: OJ 2012 C 327

• Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, signed in 1957, not published in the OJ in its original version, see: http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/treaties_founding.htm, English translation: 298 U.N.T.S. 11 (as amended; “Rome Treaty”; later renamed “Treaty Establishing the European Community”, since 1 December 2010 “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”), most recent codified version: OJ 2012 C 326/47

• Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities, signed in 1965, OJ L 152/2 (“Merger Treaty”)

• Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, signed in 1976, attached to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom, OJ 1976 L 278/1

• Single European Act, signed in 1986, OJ 1987 L 169/1

• Treaty on European Union, signed in 1992, OJ 1992 C 191/1, most recent codified version: OJ 2012 C 326/13

• Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and related acts, signed in 1997, OJ 1997 C 340/1 (“Amsterdam Treaty”)

• Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts, signed in 2001, OJ 2001 C 80/1 (“Nice Treaty”; consolidated versions: OJ 2002 C 325/01)

• Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, signed in 2004, OJ 2004 C 310/1 (not entered into force; ”Constitutional Treaty”)

• Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed in 1997, OJ 2007 C 306 (“Lisbon Treaty”, consolidated versions: OJ 2008 C 115, OJ 2010 C 83, OJ 2012 C 326 and 327)

• Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, signed in 1957 (as amended and renamed), OJ 1992 C 191/1, most recent codified version: OJ 2012 C 326/47

• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (including explanations relating to the interpretation of the Charter), OJ 2012 C 326/391 (originally: OJ 2000 C 364/01, subsequently reenacted: OJ 2007 C 303/1)

 

• Protocol on social policy, OJ 1992 C 191/90 (no longer in force)

• Protocol on protection and welfare of animals, OJ 1997 C 340/110 (no longer in force)

• Protocol (No 1) (annexed to the Lisbon Treaty) amending the Protocols annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty establishing the European Community and/or to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ 2007 C 306/165

• Protocol (No 2) (annexed to the Lisbon Treaty) amending the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ 2007 C 306/199

• Protocol (No 1) on the role of national parliaments in the European Union, OJ 2012 C 326/203

• Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, OJ 2012 C 326/206

• Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice, OJ 2012 C 326/210

• Protocol (No 6) on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union, OJ 2012 C 326/265

• Protocol (No 8) relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, OJ 2012 C 326/273

• Protocol (No 12) on the excessive deficit procedure, OJ 2012 C 326/279

• Protocol (No 13) on the convergence criteria, OJ 2012 C 326/281

• Protocol (No 15) on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, OJ 2012 C 326/284

• Protocol (No 16) on certain provisions relating to Denmark, OJ 2012 C 326/287

• Protocol (No 19) on the Schengen Acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, OJ 2012 C 326/290

• Protocol (No 26) on services of general interest, OJ 2012 C 326/308

• Protocol (No 27) on the internal market and competition, OJ 2012 C 326/309

• Protocol (No 30) on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and the United Kingdom, OJ 2012 C 326/313

• Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, 2012 C 326/322

 

• Declaration (No 4) on the composition of the European Parliament, OJ 2012 C 326/339

• Declaration (No 7) on Article 16(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ 2012 C 326/340

• Declaration (No 9) on Article 16(9) of the Treaty on European Union concerning the European Council decision on the exercise of the Presidency of the Council, OJ 2012 C 326/343

• Declaration (No 17) concerning primacy, OJ 2012 C 326/346

• Declaration (No 18) in relation to the delimitation of competences, OJ 2012 C 326/346

• Declaration (No 38) on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding the number of Advocates-General in the Court of Justice, OJ 2012 C 326/352

Replace the following entry:

Regulation 2790/1999/EC on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ 1999 L 336/21 (as amended; end of validity: 31 May 2010)

with

Regulation 330/2010/EU on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, OJ 2010 L 142/1 (entry into force: 1 June 2010; end of validity: 31 May 2022)

Replace the following entry:

Regulation 823/2000/EC on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia), OJ 2000 L 100/24 (as amended; end of validity: 25 April 2010)

with

Regulation 906/2009/EC on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia), OJ 2009 L 256/31 (entry into force: 1 June 2010; end of validity: 31 May 2022)

Replace the following entry:

Regulation 1400/2002/EC on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, OJ 2002 L 203/30 (as amended; end of validity: 31 May 2010)

with

Regulation 461/2010/EU on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, OJ 2010 L 129/52 (entry into force: 1 June 2010; end of validity: 31 May 2023)

Replace the following entry:

Regulation 358/2003/EC on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices in the insurance sector, OJ 2003 L 53/8 (as amended; end of validity: 31 March 2010)

with

Regulation 267/2010/EU on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices in the insurance sector, OJ 2010 L 83/1 (entry into force: 1 April 2010; end of validity: 31 March 2017)

Replace the following entry:

Regulation 3976/87/EEC on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices in the air transport sector,  OJ 1987 L 374/9 (as amended)

with

Regulation 487/2009/EC on the application of Ar ticle 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices in the air transport sector (codified version), OJ 2009 L 148/1

Replace the following entry:

Regulation 2658/2000/EC on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of specialisation agreements, OJ 2000 L 304/3 (as amended; end of validity: 31 December 2010)

with

Regulation 1218/2010/EU on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of specialisation agreements, OJ 2010 L 335/43 (end of validity: 31 December 2022)

Replace the following entry:

Regulation 2659/2000/EC on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of research and   development agreements, OJ 2000 L 304/7 (as amended; end of validity: 31 December 2010)

with

Regulation 1217/2010/EU on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of research and development agreements, OJ 2010 L 335/36 (end of validity: 31 December 2022)

Add the following new entries:

Regulation 1259/2010/EU of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ 2010 L 343/10

Regulation 182/2011/EU laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, OJ 2011 L 55/13

Regulation 211/2011/EU on the citizens’ initiative, OJ 2011 L 65/1

Regulation 492/2011/EU on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, OJ 2011 L 141/1

Regulation 1173/2011/EU on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area, OJ 2011 L 306/1

Regulation 1174/2011/EU on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area, OJ 2011 L 306/8

Regulation 1175/2011/EU amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies, OJ 2011 L 306/12

Regulation 1176/2011/EU on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, OJ 2011 L 306/25

Regulation 1177/2011/EU amending Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure, OJ 2011 L 306/33

Regulation 472/2013/EU on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States in the euro area experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability, OJ 2013 L 140/1

Regulation 473/2013/EU on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area, OJ 2013 L 140/11

Complete the following entry:

Directive 86/613/EEC on the application of the principle of equal treatment bet ween men and womenengaged in an activity, including agriculture, in a self- employed capacity, and on the protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood, OJ 1986 L 359/56 (as of 5 August 2012 no longer in force)

Replace the following entry:

Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services, OJ 1989 L 298/23 (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (as amended)

with

Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive), OJ 2010 L 95/1

Complete the following entry:

Directive 96/34/EC on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, OJ 1996 L 145/4 (as amended, as of 8 March 2012 no longer in force)

Add the following entries:

Directive 2010/18/EU implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC, OJ 2010 L 68/13

Directive 2010/41/EU on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC, OJ 2010 L 180/1

Directive 2011/85/EU on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States, OJ 2011 L 306/41

Directive 2011/98/EU on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State, OJ 2011 L 343/1

Replace the following entry:

Commission Notice: Guidelines on vertical restraints, OJ 2000 C 29/11

with

Commission Notice: Guidelines on vertical restraints, OJ 2010 C 130/1

Replace the following entry:

Commission Notice: Guidelines on horizontal co-operation agreements, OJ 2001 C 3/2

with

Commission Guidelines on horizontal co-operation agreements, OJ 2011 C 11/1

Change or add the following entries:

III.3. Commission Decisions (competition law)

[…]

• Decision 2010/405/EU authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ 2010 L 189/12

• Decision 2005/842/EC on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, OJ _ 2005 L 312/67 (no longer in force)

• Decision 2012/21/EU on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest OJ 2012 L 7/3

Add the following entry:

Explanatory Communication from the Commission on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices in the insurance sector, OJ 2010 C 82/20

The entry on “Commission Communication: Temporary Community framework for state aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis, OJ 2009 C 83/1” should read:

Commission Communication: Temporary Community framework for state aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis, OJ 2009 C 83/1 (as modified: OJ 2009 C 261/2, OJ 2009 C 303/6)

The following entry should read:

Rules of Procedure of the General Court, OJ 1991 L 136/1, as amended

Replace the following entry:

Commission Notice: Guidelines on vertical restraints, OJ 2000 C 29/11

with

Commission Notice: Guidelines on vertical restraints, OJ 2010 C 130/1

Add the following entries:

Communication from the Commission on the application, from 1 January 2012, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis, OJ 2011 C 356/7

Commission Communication on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest, OJ 2012 C 8/4

Communication: European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation, OJ 2012 C 8/15

The following entry should read:

Arcelor (2008):          Case C-127/07 Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie et du Développement durable and Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie [2008] ECR I-9895 (Grand Chamber)…………..7/13

Add two cases:

CELF I (2008)          Case C-199/06 CELF and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v SIDE [2008] ECR I-469 (Grand Chamber)……………9/44

CELF II (2010)          Case C-1/09 CELF and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v SIDE, judgment of 10 March 2010, n.y.r…………….9/44

The following entry should read:

Chemical Farmaceutici (1981):          Case 140/79 Chemial Farmaceutici SpA v DAF SpA [1981] ECR 1……………8/12

The following entries should read:

Commission v Germany (2008):          Case C-141/07 Commission v Germany [2008] ECR I-6935 ……………8/21

Commission v France (1997):          Case    C-265/95    Commission    v    France    [1997]    ECR    I-6959……………8/5,    12/7

Compagnie Maritime Belge (2000):          Joined cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P Compagnie Maritime Belge Transports SA, Compagnie Maritime Belge SA and Dafra-Lines A/S v Commission [2000] ECR I-1365 ……….9/20

The following entry should read:

Excessive Deficit Procedure (2004):          Case C-27/04 Commission v Council [2004] ECR I-6649 (Full Court)…………………..7/5, 12/12

Expedia (2012):         Case C-226/11 Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence and Others, judgment of 13 December 2012, n.y.r…………….9/11

Add case:

Fresh Marine (2003)          Case C-472/00 P Commission v Fresh Marine Company A/S [2003] ECR I-7541……………12/29

The following entries should be added (update):

Inuit (2011):          Case    T-18/10    Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, order of 6 September 2011, n.y.r…………….12/7

Indus (2011):          Case 371/10 National Grid Indus BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond/kantoor Rotterdam, judgment of 29 November 2011, n.y.r. (Grand Chamber)…………….8/45

The following entries must read:

Janecek (2008):          Case    C-237/07    Dieter    Janecek    v    Freistaat    Bayern    [2008]    ECR    I-06221……………6/3

Job Centre (1997):          Case C-55/96 Job Centre coop. arl. [1997] ECR I-7119 ……………9/3

La Cinq (1992):          Case T-44/90 La Cinq SA v Commission [1994] ECR II-1……………9/37

The following entry should be added:

Jégo-Quéré (2002):          Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA v Commission [2002] ECR 2002 II-2365……………12/8

The following entry should read:

Martínez Sala (1998):          Case C-85/96 María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I-2691 ……………7/19

Add the following case:

Marleasing (1990):          Case C-106/89 Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA [1990] ECR I-4135 ……………6/10

Add the following new case:

Microban (2011)          Case T-262/10 Microban International Ltd and Microban (Europe) Ltd v European Commission, judgment of 25 October 2011, n.y.r…………….12/7

Add the following new case:

Pringle (2012):          Case C-370/12 Thomas Pringle v Governement of Ireland, Ireland and The Attorney General, judgment of of 27 November 2012, n.y.r. (Full Court)……………7/5

Add the following new case:

Römer (2011)          Case C-147/08 Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, judgment of 10 May 2011, n.y.r. (Grand Chamber)……………10/14

The following entry should read:

Royal Scholten-Honig (1978):          Joined cases 103 and 145/77 Royal Scholten-Honig (Holdings) Limited v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce; Tunnel Refineries Limited v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce [1978] ECR 2037 ……………7/13, 12/29

Add two missing cases:

Schneider (2007) Case T-351/03 Schneider Electric SA v Commission [2007] ECR II-2237 ……………12/29

Schneider (2009) Case C-440/07 P Commission v Schneider Electric SA, judgment of 16 July 2009, n.y.r. (Grand Chamber) ……………12/29

The following entries should read:

SGL Carbon (2007):          Case C-328/05 P SGL Carbon AG v Commission [2007] ECR I-3921 ……………9/29

SPCM (2009):          Case C-558/07 The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd and Hercules Inc. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, judgment of 7 July 2009, n.y.r. (Grand Chamber) ……………7/13

Strawberries (1997):          Case    C-265/95    Commission    v    France    [1997]    ECR    I-6959……………1/12, 8/3, 8/5, 8/30, 12/16

Add case:

Perreux (2009)          Emmanuelle Perreux, judgment of the French Conseil d’État of 30 October 2009……………6/3

The following entries should read:

Walt Wilhelm (1969):          Case 14/68 Walt Wilhelm and others v Bundeskartellamt [1969] ECR 1 ……………7/13

Windsurfing International (1986):          Case 193/83 Windsurfing International Inc. v Commission [1986] ECR 611 ……………9/9

Add the following entries:

European Stability Mechanism……………7/5

Fiscal Compact……………7/5

Add the following entry:

Six-Pack……………7/5

Add the following entry:

Two-Pack…………..7/5