THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA3024 October

DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW

LLB

ALL SCHEMES AND ROUTES

BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

EU Law

Friday 23 October 2015: 10.00 – 13.15

Candidates will have fifteen minutes during which they may read the paper
and make rough notes ONLY in their answer books. They then have the
remaining THREE HOURS in which to answer the questions.

Candidates should answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions.

Candidates should answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.

Permitted materials
Students are permitted to bring into the examination room the following
specified document: either Blackstone's EU Treaties and Legislation (OUP)
or Rudden & Wyatt's (OUP) EU Treaties and Legislation (formerly Basic
Community Law) or one copy of Core EU Legislation (Palgrave Macmillan).

© University of London 2015

UL15/0635
Page 1 of 5
1. ‘One can foresee, based on the recent case law of the Court of Justice
of the European Union (CJEU), that the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union (CFREU) will soon become a standard of
constitutional legality which both EU and national institutions are due to
respect, as well as the citizens of the EU.’

Discuss.

2. ‘The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been testing
the outer limits of the concept of EU citizenship in cases involving
family members who are not themselves EU citizens; the acquisition
and loss of citizenship; and purely internal situations. The Court
must tread carefully. Citizenship may well be a ‘fundamental status’ of
the nationals of the Member States, requiring an expansive and
protective approach. However, that principle is counter-balanced by
the principle of conferral, which means that the EU cannot act outside
the competences conferred upon it by the Member States.’

Discuss.

3. Over the last couple of years the Brussels international airport is finding
it increasingly difficult to organise night flights, because of the noise
effects on residents living near the airport. Those residents have set
up an association which is lobbying for a ban on all night flights. At
some point the association sets up night vigils, blocking the runways in
protest of the government's inaction. Those vigils take place with
increasing regularity (three days per week), and lead to protests by
companies involved in the night flights. Those companies complain to
the European Commission, which takes up the case, and contacts the
Belgian government, pointing out that the night vigils obstruct free
movement. The Belgian government argues that it cannot interfere,
and that the night vigils are justified on the grounds of environmental
protection (combating noise pollution) and of the right to peaceful
demonstrations and freedom of expression (which are fundamental
rights). The Commission therefore decides to bring an action against
Belgium before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

You are the Advocate General of the case. Please write your Opinion.

UL15/0635
Page 2 of 5
4. Ms Guerra is an Italian national who has been living in Brussels for the
last three years. She is an accordion player and works only part-time.
Her total revenue is below the minimum wage in Belgium. In 2015 she
applies to the Belgian authorities for a ‘minimex’, a social benefit
granted to Belgian nationals when their salary is below a certain
wage. Meanwhile she started looking for a better-paid job. The
benefit was firstly granted but then revoked after few months.
The grounds cited by the national authorities are that Ms Guerra is not
a worker nor is she is entitled to receive such a benefit as she is not
permanently resident in Belgium. The authorities also decide to issue a
deportation order against her on the basis of the Directive 2004/38:
‘EU citizens exercising their right of residence should not become an
unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host
member State during an initial period of residence’.

She instructs you as her lawyer to challenge the Belgium authority

decisions.

UL15/0635
Page 3 of 5
5. Directive 2010/1 (fictitious) seeks to harmonise national rules on the
fair treatment of consumers in the car insurance sector. Member
States are required to take the measures necessary to ensure that:

(a) drivers may change insurers by giving one month’s notice

of intention to terminate their current insurance contract,
without having to pay any further premiums or penalties;

(b) insurance firms do not charge male drivers higher

premiums than female drivers for equivalent levels of
insurance cover;

(c) an authorised body has the power to impose punitive

fines upon insurance firms that do not process claims
within a six-week timescale.

The deadline for implementation of the Directive was 1 September

2014. The United Kingdom failed to adopt any measures for its
transposition into national law, though under English law, insurance
contracts may be cancelled by giving “reasonable notice” and paying
any early termination penalties specified in the insurance contract.

(a) Alice’s car was badly damaged in a motorway accident. The

repair costs amounted to £5,000. In addition, Alice’s work as a
self-employed sales agent has been seriously disrupted, with
lost income totalling another £5,000. Four months ago, Alice
made a claim under her car insurance contract with
KarKover Ltd, but she has not yet received a penny.

(b) Bob recently agreed a 12-month insurance contract with

KarKover Ltd. After watching a TV advert offering the
same cover for half the price with QuickQlaim Ltd, Dirk calls
KarKover Ltd to give notice that he would like to cancel his
contract. He is told that he will have to pay another two months
of premiums, plus a £250 termination fee.

Advise Alice and Bob as to their rights, if any, under EU law.

UL15/0635
Page 4 of 5
6. The Dutch legislature is considering introducing the following
measures:

(a) A prohibition on the offering of games of chance via the

internet. The organisation of such games will be based
on a system of exclusive licences under which the
organisation or promotion of games of chance will be
prohibited, unless an administrative licence for that
purpose has been issued. Only one such licence will be
able to be issued at any one time and this will be granted
to SuperLotto, a non-profit making foundation which is
governed by Dutch private law. The holder of the licence
will be entitled to offer new games and to use advertising
to promote the games it is offering.

The Commission intends to bring an action against the Netherlands for

possible infringement of EU law, should the latter proceed with the
introduction of the above measures. You are the Commission official
instructed to prepare the case against the Netherlands.

7. ‘The recent rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union

(CJEU) in the area of Article 34 TFEU clarify what, in many respects,
was already evident from previous case law: the Keck distinction
based on the type of rules is no longer relevant; what matters is the
effect of the rules on market access.’

Discuss.

8. ‘The doctrine of direct effect has been fundamentally undermined by

the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) employing
unnecessary limitations, inconsistent principles, arbitrary distinctions
and flawed reasoning.’

Discuss.

END OF PAPER

UL15/0635
Page 5 of 5