Source: https://officialblogofunio.com/2016/03/31/summary-of-costaenel-664/
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 21:18:22
Document Index: 680480101

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

Summary of Costa/ENEL – 6/64 – Official Blog of UNIO
On March 31, 2016 By officialblogunioIn Summaries of judgments
On the application of article 177 of EEC Treaty, CJEU began to argue that national courts may submit the matter when there is no judicial appeal and it’s connected to an interpretation of the treaty, however the CJUE has no jurisdiction to apply the judgment to a specific case. Although the question ware misconceived, the CJEU proceed to analyse the European articles without interfering in Italian law validation.
For the Italian Government, the request of Giudice Consiliatore was unnecessary because only national law had been applied to the case. CJEU states that unlike other treaties, EEC treaty became an integral part of the national jurisdictions of Member States and the states must accept that the CJEU has competences to intervene and give their judgements in concrete cases. In other words, the national jurisdiction interpretation of the law is limited since the CJEU was created by the respective states who approved their competences. The precedence of Community Law is confirmed by the article 189 and there is any chance to introduce reservations in the law by Member States.
The Court continued to answer the question singly:
When any government wants to proceed to nationalization, they must consult the Commission to receive recommendations about the matter. The goal of this article is to approach national legislations with regard to the objectives of the Treaty. Again, the CJEU remembered the Italian Government that they accepted this legislation and they have to submit to the community rules. At last, this obligation doesn’t fit as an argument for defence of the particular.
The objective of article 93 is to keep under control all systems of aid. It’s necessary a closer cooperation between Member States and Commission. The Commission has to be informed about the possible changes by Member States. The CJEU demonstrates concerns about state aids which might generate unfair competition.
This article undertakes Member States not to introduce any establishment restrictions to national or foreign companies in their own territory. Unlike all the others articles, the Court states that it’s interest of the particular to protect their rights. The CJEU proceeds their speech remembering that article 53 continues legal if there will be any different legislation between national and international undertakings.
This article says that Member States have to adapt State Monopolies to the competition rules in order to reduce discrimination between undertakings.
The decision can be accessed here and the opinion of AG here.
case lawCJEUclassicalcompetition rulesEUEuropean integrationjudgmentsnationalisationnon-discriminationprimacystate aid
Editorial of April 2016
article 50 artificial intelligence brexit case law CFREU charter of fundamental rights of the EU citizenship CJEU classical competition Competition Law Copyright criminal law data protection Democracy digital digital culture digital economy digital single market effective judicial protection elections environmental law EU EU Antitrust rules EU asylum policy euro European citizenship european commission european elections European integration European parliament EUROZONE failure to fulfil an obligation financial system Freedom of religion free movement of goods Fundamental Rights GDPR google hungary integration Internal Market internet interop interoperability jean-claude juncker judgments judicial independence judicial power liability membership Migration crisis non-discrimination notification to withdraw personal data poland populism post-brexit privacy Refugee crisis regulation 883/2004 Right to equal treatment rule of law services social policy social rights social security Sovereignty state state aid UK Union based on the rule of law usa withdrawal withdrawal agreement