Please answer 2 out of 4 questions, and see the rest of the instructions and questions below and in uploaded file. thanks
EUROPEAN UNION LAW
COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT – PART TWO – 2015-2016
LENGTH: 2,400 words maximum (1,200 words for each question answered plus or
Sources: A bibliography must be given at the end and any other sources
acknowledged. References should be given at the bottom of each page as
Plagiarism (ie. direct copying from books etc. or representing other writers’ work as
your own) will result in a FAIL. All sources used must be properly acknowledged.
Last submission date: – Monday 11th January 2016 – 13.00 deadline
Submission of course work: – See page 10 above
Answer TWO of the following 4 questions. Each question carries equal marks.
Tina and Martin are both employed in the personnel department of Financial
Services Ltd as personnel assistants. They both started working for the company
at the same time but after five years Martin is paid more than Tina even though
they work for the same number of hours. Also Martin receives more days holiday
per year than Tina. Tina is arguing that she should receive the same pay and
holiday as Martin.
Susan is employed in the secretarial department. She has discovered that her
pay (and that of other secretarial staff) is about half of that received by staff in the
marketing department, all of whose members are male. She has complained that
this difference in pay amounts to sex discrimination and that she should be paid
the same salary as the marketing staff.
Rachel works part-time in the personnel department. Most of the staff employed
part-time in the department are female. Rachel has complained that part-time
staff are excluded from the company’s sick pay and occupational pension
schemes. She complained about this but was told that it was too costly and
therefore not financially viable to include part time staff in the schemes. Rachel
is arguing that this exclusion amounts to sex discrimination.
Rita and Tom both applied for a job in the sales department. They were both
equally qualified and experienced but the job was offered to Tom. Rita was told
“the sales job requires long hours and a lot of stamina, we do not think it is a job
for a woman”.
Rita is arguing that she has been a victim of sex discrimination.
Advise Tina, Susan, Rachel and Rita on the basis whereby EU law on sex
discrimination (Art 157 TFEU) can be argued to the above events and critically
assess whether each could be successful in actions against the company for sex
Pueblo is a Spanish farmer of sheep and dairy cattle. There was an outbreak of
sheep rot in some EU member states, although Pueblo’s farm was not affected. As
a result of this disease, trade in live sheep was restricted in the EU although an all
clear was recently announced. When Pueblo attempted to import some live sheep
into France the French authorities required him to pay for a health inspection.
Pueblo exported milk to the UK. At the port of arrival he was required to pay a fee
for storage and checking. He then paid a further amount for onward transportation.
Pueblo’s farm also produces different types of cheese. He imports some high
quality cheese to Germany. The German authorities levy a 20% tax rate on
Pueblo’s cheeses compared to a 10% tax on equivalent German cheeses. The
authorities argue that this is justified as German cheeses are produced by
environmentally friendly methods.
Pueblo discovered that alternatives to cheese (such as cold meat and food
spreads) have only a 5% tax levied on them in Germany. Pueblo is arguing that this
is affecting the sales of his cheeses in Germany.
Critically discuss and advise Pueblo as to how the law on the free movement of
goods (as applied by Articles 30 and 110 TFEU) can be argued to the various
payments and taxes levied in the above scenario.
Critically analyse the extent to which conduct by undertakings that may affect
competition is regulated by Article 101 TFEU.
Your answer should include specific case examples and evidence of background
Brewmaster plc is a company based in the UK that produces beers and soft
drinks. It has recently experienced the following issues in relation to trading its
products within the EU:
(a) Belgium requires that beers sold within the country comply with Belgian
labelling rules. All Belgian beers comply with this, but Brewmaster’s beers do not.
Brewmaster argue that this is unfair as it would be too costly to label their beers
differently for Belgium. Belgium also requires that the labelling states a health
warning. Brewmaster’s beers do not include this. As a result of these
requirements Brewmaster are prevented from selling their beers in Belgium.
(b) Bewmaster would like to sell its soft drinks in Germany. The German
authorities state that Bremaster’s soft drinks contain additives which are
prohibited in Germany which has banned all imports that contain the additives.
Bewmaster argue that their soft drinks are accepted elsewhere in the EU and
therefore should be accepted in Germany.
(c) Recently, due to high alcohol consumption in Sweden the Swedish authorities
have introduced a law that restricts the advertising of alcoholic drinks. This has
made it more difficult for Brewmaster to promote their beers in Sweden causing
them to lose market share in favour of national brewers.
Critically discuss how EU law on the free movement of goods (as applied by
Articles 34 and 36 TFEU and relevant case law) can be applied to the above
events and advise Brewmaster on whether the restrictions they have
encountered are likely to be in breach of EU Law.
SOURCES / READING LIST
1 Steiner & Woods, “EU Law”, 12th Edition, 2014, chapters (check contents).
2 Craig & De Burca,”EC Law: Text,Cases,& Materials”,6th edition, 2015, (check
3 Wyatt & Dashwood,”European Community Law”,chapters (check contents).
4 Weatherill,S,”Cases and Materials on EU Law”, 11th edition 2014, chapters (check
5 A Kaczorowska, “European Union Law”, 1st Edition 2009, Cavendish
6 Ward “A Critical Introduction to European Law”,3rd Edition,2009,Cambridge.
7 Green,Hartley and Usher,”The Legal Foundations of the Single
8 Mathijsen,”A Guide to European Union Law”,Part Two,chapters 1,6,7,8.
RECENT JOURNAL ARTICLES
Please note: The following ELR and CMLR journal articles can be accessed
through the Library Search option. Type ”European Law Review” or “Common
Market Law Review” into the box, click on the relevant search result and then log in
through the resource (eg Westlaw) to access the article.
Journal articles are also available in paper format in the library (Regent Campus
Library, Little Tichfield Street).
1 Ioannis Lianos, “In Memoriam Keck: the reformation of the EU law on the free
movement of goods”
(European Law Review 2015, 40(2), 225-248)
2 Peter Oliver, “Of Trailers and Jet Skis: Is the Case Law on Article 34 TFEU
Hurtling in a New Direction”? (Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 33,
Issue 5 2011)
3 Graham C, “Methods for determining whether an agreement restricts
competition: comment on Allianz Hungaria”
(European. Law. Review 2013, 38(4), 542-551)
4 Hojnik, J, “Free Movement of Goods in a Labyrinth: Can Buy Irish survive the
(Common Market Law Review 49: 291–326, 2012)
5 Krenn, C, “A Missing piece in the Horizontal Effect “Jigsaw”:
Horizontal Direct Effect and The Free Movement of Goods”
(Common Market Law Review 49: 177–216, 2012).
6 Koldinská K, “Case law of the European Court of Justice on sex discrimination
(Common Market Law Review 48: 1599-1638, 2011)
7 Bailey D, “Restrictions of Competition by object under Article 101 TFEU”
(Common Market Law Review 49: 559-600, 2012)
8 Spaventa E, “Leaving Keck behind? The free movement of goods after the
rulings in Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos”
(European Law Review 2009)
9 Lianos I, “Collusion in vertical relations under Article 81 EC”
(Common Market Law Review 45: 1027-1077, 2008)
10 Brouwer, O, Goyder J, Mes D, “Developments in EC competition law in 2007:
(Common Market Law Review 45: 1167-1205, 2008)
11 Wilsher D, “Does Keck discrimination make any sense? An assessment of the
non-discrimination principle within the European Single Market.”
(European Law Review 2008, 33(1), 3-22)
OLDER JOURNAL ARTICLES
1 DEVELOPMENTS IN EC COMPETITION LAW IN 2005: AN OVERVIEW
SVEN B. VOLCKER
Common Market Law Review; Oct 2006, Vol.43: p1409-1446.
2 DEVELOPMENTS IN EC COMPETITION LAW IN 2004: AN OVERVIEW
SVEN B. VOLCKER
Common Market Law Review; Dec 2005, Vol.42: p1691-1736.
3 Ellis E,”Recent Developments in European Community Sex Equality Law:
(Common Market Law Review,April 1998,pages 379-408).*
4 Whiteford E,”Lost in the mists of time: The ECJ and occupational pensions”:
(Common Market Law Review,1995,pages 801-840).*
5 Rivas J, & Stroud,F, “Developments in EC competition law in 2001: An
(Common Market Law Review, October 2002,pages 1101-1145).
6 Monti G, “Article 81 EC and public policy”
(Common Market Law Review, October 2002,pages 1057-1099).
7 Koutrakos P,”On groceries,alcohol and olive oil: more on the free movement of
goods after Keck”. (European Law Review, August 2001,pages 391-407).*
8 Mortelmans K,”Towards convergence in the application of the rules on free
movement and competition?”
(Common Market Law Review,June 2001,pages 613-649).
9 Monti G,”The scope of collective dominance under Article 82 EC”.
(Common Market Law Review,February 2001,pages 131-157.*
10 Whish R,”Regulation 2790/99: The Commission’s “new style” block exemption
for vertical agreements”.
(Common Market Law Review,August 2000,pages 887-924).