LAW2110 – EU Law – Summative Coursework

This coursework has a 3,750-word limit. You must answer all three questions and
each answer should be about 1,250 words.
Coursework more than 10% over the word limit will be marked down in accordance
with the rules in the Module Handbook. The coursework must be turned in via Turnitin.

This coursework is due on Tuesday 25 April 2023 at 16:00. The written coursework
is worth 75% of the total grade for the Module.

Coursework questions
Question 1

In compliance with the (hypothetical) Make Italy Great Again Act 2022, all university
lecturers teaching EU related subjects in the Italy must hold Italian citizenship.

According to the Italian government, this new requirement is needed as nationals of

EU countries are more likely to hold pro-EU views and therefore more likely to present
the EU in a positive light to their students. As Italy is considering leaving the EU, the
Government believes it necessary to regulate the way in which EU-related subjects
are taught at the University level. The preamble to the Make Italy Great Again Act 2022
emphasises the exceptional nature of this condition to justify its adoption.

Laurent, a French national who has been exclusively lecturing EU Law for a decade
at a Milan-based university, has been dismissed as a consequence of the Act. Of the
view that he has been unfairly dismissed despite the generous compensation he has
received, he initiated proceedings in Italy. Laurent contested the legitimacy of the
domestic law as it conflicts with his rights under EU law.

The judge who hears the case in the Italian Tribunal decided to ignore Laurent’s
argument on the ground that national law should always prevail over EU law. The
Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court and the case has now been appealed to
the Italian Court of Cassation.

As one of Laurent’s counsels, you have been asked to prepare a brief memo to be
submitted to the Italian Court of Cassation. This memo should outline:
(i) the extent to which the Make Italy Great Again Act 2022 is not compatible
with EU Law.
(ii) which principles regulate the relationship between national law and EU law
and whether the Italian Tribunal was right in stating the domestic law always
prevails over EU Law.

Question 2

Recently, the Government of Portugal has been concerned about the increase in the
use of e-cigarettes among its citizens and has introduced the (fictional) No More
Smoking Act 2023 to ban the use of cigarettes in all public buildings. While the ban
does not directly address the use of e-cigarettes in non-public buildings, the
Government has issued a set of Guidelines in which it advised the owners and
occupiers of all buildings open to the public to introduce their own rules to ban or
reduce the use of e-cigarettes. As a consequence, the overall use of e-cigarettes has
been significantly reduced.

The No More Smoking Act 2023 has not affected the import, sale and marketing of
e-cigarettes which are still permissible under Portuguese law. 80% of e-cigarettes
are imported from other EU countries (primarily from Germany) and only 20% are
manufactured in Portugal.

The larger importer of e-cigarette in Portugal, Nico Teen Ltd, has complained about
the legitimacy of the No More Smoking Act 2023 in front of the Portuguese High
Court. In its Respondent Brief, the Portuguese Government has argued that the ban
is justified on health grounds and on the need to protect consumers.
Currently, there is no EU ban on the use of e-cigarettes even though the possibility
of introducing such ban is being considered by the European Parliament and the
Commission.

Being friend with one of the Nico Teen’s owners and incidentally, a brilliant LLB
student at Middlesex, you have agreed to put together a brief memo outlining:

(i) whether the No More Smoking Act is compatible with EU rules concerning
the freedom of movement of goods.
(ii) whether the ban introduced by the No More Smoking Act can be justified
on the grounds cited by the Portuguese Government.
.
Question 3

“Article 288 TFEU suggests Regulations and Directives are very different types of
legislative instrument. In practice, especially as a result of the doctrine of direct
effect, the distinction is now blurred.”

Discuss.