lOMoARcPSD|7138572

EU Law Exam Paper - July 2020

EU law (University of London)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Mahdi Bin Mamun (mahdibinmamun404@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|7138572

LA2024 July ZA

EU law

Thursday 16 July 2020

You will have TWO HOURS AND 45 MINUTES in which to answer the
questions, including 15 minutes reading time. You must answer all parts of a
question unless otherwise stated.

You will have an additional 30 minutes to download the examination paper and
to upload your saved answers to the VLE; this time should be used solely for
these purposes.

You must answer TWO of the following EIGHT questions.

© University of London 2020

Page 1 of 3

Downloaded by Mahdi Bin Mamun (mahdibinmamun404@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|7138572

1. The CJEU held in the Grzelczyk case that, ‘Union citizenship is destined
to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, enabling
those who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy the same
treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such
exceptions as are expressly provided for.’

Discuss the extent to which this prediction has been fulfilled.

2. Bruschini, an Italian wine producer, enters into a contract to supply a

quantity of red table wine to Fabben, a German company specialising in
the production of sparkling wine. Bruschini obtains a “quality certificate”
from an Italian research laboratory. The first consignment of the
Bruschini wine is, however, subject to controls by German authorities,
and some samples are tested in a German laboratory. This test is based
on a new technique called “wine magnetic resonance control”. This test
demonstrates that water has been added to the Bruschini wine, and,
consequently, the wine is impounded on the instruction of the German
authorities. Bruschini argues that this test should be considered a
violation of free movement of goods and brings an action before the
German Courts, which reaches the CJEU via a preliminary reference.

You are the lawyer for Germany. Defend your case.

3. ‘The CJEU is not a human rights court. Any dispute concerning the
application of interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights should
go well beyond its jurisdiction.’

Discuss.

4. ‘Virtually any piece of national legislation can now be scrutinized by the

CJEU for a breach of Article 34 TFEU. Such practice is a serious
violation of national sovereignty and needs to be stopped.’

Discuss.

5. In the picturesque French village of St Jacques, the housing market is

out of control. Locals find it impossible to purchase homes of any sort as
they are priced out of the market by second home buyers. A quarter of
homes are second homes, injuring the economic life and any sense of
local community. Following a local referendum on restricting second
home ownership, the Town Council has adopted a measure which binds
the housing department to limit planning permission for “new build”
housing to that reserved for people who live full-time in St Jacques. The
O’Briens, who are domiciled in Ireland, have wanted for years to buy a
holiday home in France and they love St Jacques.

Advise the O’Briens if EU law can be of any assistance to them.

Page 2 of 3

Downloaded by Mahdi Bin Mamun (mahdibinmamun404@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|7138572

6. ‘What constitutes the basis of direct effect, supremacy and consistent

interpretation? The CJEU’s case law is in reality very pragmatic, building
on the paradigm of EU law as an independent – autonomous – legal
order of a new kind. “Autonomous” refers here to the fact that law
creation and the effects of this law are decided by that legal order itself,
independently from national law.’

Discuss.

7. Alberto trained as a chef in his home country Italy and worked in various
Italian and other European countries before settling in Paris, France,
with his family. Throughout his career, Alberto has always been an active
member of different trades unions, fighting for workers’ rights. Since his
relocation to Paris, Alberto has become much more active and has
published a series of articles in the French and foreign press,
denouncing abuses towards staff in the hospitality industry across
Europe. Three years ago, he initiated a pan-European protest, whereby
5,000 cooks around Europe went on strike for a day claiming better
wages for temporary staff. Alberto has applied for a position as executive
chef at the Elysée Palace, to lead the kitchen feeding the President of
the Republic. He was not even interviewed, and Philippe, a less-qualified
French national, got the job. The feedback Alberto received from the
panel was that, as a foreigner, he was not eligible for this job. Moreover,
given his profile, he would qualify as a threat to the president. Alberto
wonders if EU law can help him challenge the decision of the panel.

Advise Alberto.

8. Speedco is a company active in the car wash industry. With a market

share of 35% in the EU, they have set out a “Rapid Expansion Plan” for
countries where they are underrepresented, such as Poland and
Hungary. To this effect, their legal team has set up a series of
agreements of “Mutual Trust and Support” with their main competitors,
Gleamco and Brightco, each of which cover around 40% of the market
in Eastern European countries. The agreements provide mainly for
technological cooperation. Speedco commits to sharing certain
technologies with Gleamco and Brightco and to provide staff efficiency
training for both companies. In exchange, Gleamco and Brightco commit
to reducing the number of shops they hold in provincial towns, allowing
Speedco an easier access to those markets. While the legal team
provides reassurance that these agreements are compatible with EU
law, the Chief Executive Officer wonders whether they respect EU
competition law.

Advise Speedco, Gleamco and Brigthco.

END OF PAPER

Page 3 of 3

Downloaded by Mahdi Bin Mamun (mahdibinmamun404@gmail.com)