Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpretation of Provisions that Grant Individual Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Individual Rights in EU Law

  • 749 Accesses

Abstract

If a provision grants individual rights, this may impact the interpretation of the rules that are to be applied to the facts in a given case. For example, Royer concerned the free movement of workers, freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. Mr Royer had been convicted for procuring and armed robberies in his native France, before moving to Belgium where he sought work. He failed to respect the formalities on his entry into Belgium and Belgium therefore sought to have him expelled on these grounds. The Court found that:

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case 48/75 Royer [1975] ECR 497, para 23.

  2. 2.

    Case 48/75 Royer [1975] ECR 497, para 33.

  3. 3.

    Cf., e.g. Case C-165/91 Van Munster [1994] ECR I-4661, para 34; Case C-262/97 Engelbrecht [2000] ECR I-7321, para 39; and Case C-327/00 Santex [2003] ECR I-1877, para 63.

  4. 4.

    Cf., e.g. Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others [2004] ECR I-8835, para 116.

  5. 5.

    Cf., e.g. Case C-334/92 Wagner Miret [1993] ECR I-6911, paras 20–22.

  6. 6.

    Cf., e.g. Joined Cases C-13/91 and C-113/91 Debus [1992] ECR I-3617, para 32; Case C-158/91 Levy [1993] ECR I-4287, para 9; Case C-347/96 Solred [1998] ECR I-937, para 30; Case C-262/97 Engelbrecht [2000] ECR I-7621, para 40; and Case C-327/00 Santex [2003] ECR I-1877, para 64.

  7. 7.

    Cf. Dougan (2007), pp. 932–935.

  8. 8.

    Case C-591/10 Littlewoods [2012] (OJ 2012 C 295, p. 5) (EU:C:2012:478), para 33; Case C-314/08 Filipiak [2009] ECR I-1149, para 83; Case C-337/91 van Gemert-Derks [1993] ECR I-5435, para 33; and Joined Cases C-10/97 to C-22/97 IN. CO. GE. 90 and Others [1998] ECR I-6307, para 21.

  9. 9.

    Cf. Case C-591/10 Littlewoods [2012] (OJ 2012 C 295, p. 5) (EU:C:2012:478), para 31, cf. also Case C-326/96 Levez [1998] ECR I-7835, para 42, and Case C-231/96 Edis [1998] ECR I-4951, para 36.

  10. 10.

    Cf. Schermers and Vaelbrock (2001), p. 15.

  11. 11.

    Case 63/81 Levin [1982] ECR 1035, para 13.

  12. 12.

    Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40). Cf., now, Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

  13. 13.

    Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651, para 36.

  14. 14.

    Case C-450/93 Kalanke [1995] ECR I-3051.

  15. 15.

    Case C-450/93 Kalanke [1995] ECR I-3051, para 21.

  16. 16.

    Case C-450/93 Kalanke [1995] ECR I-3051, para 22, cf., also, para 24. The ruling in Kalanke in particular sparked some doubt as to how far Member States could go in taking positive action to promote equality . Ultimately, Article 141(4) TEC(A) was added, corresponding to what is now Article 157(4) TFEU, under which ‘the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the underrepresented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers’. The current Directive has also rephrased the options for those taking positive action: ‘Member States may maintain or adopt measures within the meaning of Article 141(4) of the Treaty with a view to ensuring full equality in practice between men and women in working life’, cf. Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23), Article 3. It is unclear, however, whether the scope of the derogation has been significantly widened. The ruling in Case C-407/98 Abrahamsson [2000] ECR I-5539 suggests, on the contrary, that the alteration of the Treaty has not had any great impact.

  17. 17.

    Davies (2013), p. 60.

  18. 18.

    Joined Cases C-283, 291 and 292/94 Denkavit [1996] ECR I-5063, para 27. Cf. also Case C-398/09 Lady & Kid [2011] ECR I-7375. Lady & Kid dealt with the issue of a defence against a claim for restitution of monies paid over as an unlawful tax (the Court of Justice having previously (Case C-200/90 Dansk Denkavit and Poulsen Trading [1992] ECR I-2217) declared the tax contradictory to the 6th VAT Directive (Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes—Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1988 L 145, p. 1), Article 33. Cf., now, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)). Specifically, the Member State argued that the effects of the unlawful tax had been offset by the simultaneous abolishment of other taxes. The Court found that the rules on recovery of sums unduly paid had to be interpreted as precluding this sort of defence. While the ‘passing on’ defence was indeed in line with Union law, the Court found that refusing to reimburse a tax levied on the sale of goods on these grounds ‘is a limitation of a subjective right derived from the legal order of the European Union, it must be interpreted narrowly’, cf. Case C-398/09 Lady & Kid [2011] ECR I-7375, para 20.

  19. 19.

    Cf. Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64), Articles 9 et seq.

  20. 20.

    Cf., e.g., Fennelly (1996), pp. 673–674; and Reich (2005), p. 18.

  21. 21.

    Case 2/74 Reyners [1974] ECR 631, para 43.

  22. 22.

    Case C-1/05 Jia [2007] ECR I-1, para 36; with reference to Case 316/85 Lebon [1987] ECR 2811, paras 22–23.

  23. 23.

    Case C-5/05 Infopaq International [2009] ECR I-6569, para 56; with reference to Case C-476/01 Kapper [2004] ECR I-5205, para 72; and Case C-36/05 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I-10313, para 31.

  24. 24.

    Case C-8/08 T-Mobile [2009] ECR I-4529.

  25. 25.

    Case C-199/92 P Hüls [1999] ECR I-4287, paras 161–162.

  26. 26.

    Case C-8/08 T-Mobile [2009] ECR I-4529, para 49.

  27. 27.

    Case C-8/08 T-Mobile [2009] ECR I-4529, para 50.

  28. 28.

    Case C-8/08 T-Mobile [2009] ECR I-4529, para 52.

  29. 29.

    Case C-557/12 Kone [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 5 June 2014) (OJ 2014 C 253, p. 9) (EU:C:2014:1317).

  30. 30.

    Cf., in general, Dunne (2014).

  31. 31.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-557/12 Kone [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 5 June 2014) (OJ 2014 C 253, p. 9) (EU:C:2014:1317), para 21.

  32. 32.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-557/12 Kone [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 5 June 2014) (OJ 2014 C 253, p. 9) (EU:C:2014:1317), para 27.

  33. 33.

    Cf., e.g., Case C-291/13 Papasavvas [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 11 September 2014) (OJ 2014 C 409, p. 14) (EU:C:2014:2209), paras 20 cf. 51–57.

  34. 34.

    Cf., e.g., Case C-555/12 Loreti (OJ 2013 C 129, p. 6) (Summ. pub.).

References

  • Davies G (2013) Freedom of contract and the horizontal effect of free movement law. In: Leczykiewicz D, Weatherill S (eds) The involvement of EU law in private law relationships. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, pp 53–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2007) When Worlds Collide! Competing visions of the relationship between direct effect and supremacy. CML Rev 44:931–963

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne N (2014) It never rains but it pours? Liability for “umbrella effects” under EU competition law in Kone, Case C-557/12, Kone AG and Others v. ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2014, nyr. CML Rev 51:1813–1828

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennelly N (1996) Legal interpretation at the Court of Justice. FILJ 20:656–679

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N (2005) Understanding EU law: objectives, principles and methods of community law, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Antwerpen–Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermers HG, Vaelbrock DF (2001) Judicial protection in the European Union, 6th edn. Kluwer Law International, The Hague–London–New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Private Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Bjarte Thorson

Authors
  1. Bjarte Thorson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thorson, B. (2016). Interpretation of Provisions that Grant Individual Rights. In: Individual Rights in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32770-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32771-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation