Fundamental Cases at the Court of Justice

Fundamentals of EU law

Van Gend en Loos

The Court delivered what might be its most famous judgment in a case called Van Gend en Loos (1963).

A Dutch court asked the Court of Justice whether national courts could themselves apply an EU law that forbid countries from increasing customs tariffs on trade within the EU. The Dutch authorities had increased tariffs on certain chemicals. The transport company, Van Gend en Loos, had been asked to pay these higher tariffs when importing chemicals from Germany to the Netherlands, and so it had taken a case to a national court. The Court of Justice agreed that the national court had to apply EU law. This created the doctrine of “direct effect”. It means that individuals can directly rely on certain rules of EU law in disputes before national courts.

Costa v ENEL

One year later, in Costa v ENEL (1964), the Court established another major principle.

An Italian court asked the Court of Justice for guidance on a conflict between an EU law and a subsequent Italian law nationalising an electricity company. The Court ruled that, in cases of conflict, EU law is “supreme” and that the national law must be set aside. This is called the doctrine of “supremacy” or “primacy” of EU law.

Together, the doctrines of direct effect and supremacy are the cornerstones of EU law.

Francovich

The Court continued to shape important principles of EU law in the years that followed. In Andrea Francovich and Others v Italian Republic (1991), it introduced the principle of “state liability”.

A group of Italian workers lost their wages when their employer went bankrupt. An EU Directive had been adopted that aimed to protect employees in such a situation. However, Italy had not implemented this Directive in its own national legal system. The workers complained that they were harmed because of Italy’s failure. The Court said that an EU country can be sued by individuals for harm caused by its failure to comply with EU law.

Free movement of goods

Dassonville

The Court also played a key role in shaping the free movement of goods within the EU. In Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville (1974), it established what became known as the “Dassonville Formula”.

EU rules forbid Member States from setting limits on imports into their country from other EU countries. The rules also ban any national rules with an “equivalent effect” to such a limit. In this case, Belgium required certificates of origin for Scotch whisky. Gustave Dassonville, a wholesaler in France, and his son Benoît, who managed a branch of the business in Belgium, bought bottles of “Johnnie Walker” and “Vat 69” whisky in France to sell in Belgium. As no such certificate was required in France, they could not provide it. They were then prosecuted in Belgium.

The Court ruled that national rules that restrict trade in the EU, either directly or indirectly, have an equivalent effect to limits on imports.

Cassis de Dijon

The Dassonville reasoning was developed in Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (1979), also known as Cassis de Dijon.

Germany refused to allow the liqueur “Cassis de Dijon” to be imported from France and sold in Germany, as it did not meet German standards for alcohol content. In order to be sold in Germany as liqueur, a drink had to have an alcohol content of more than 25%. Cassis de Dijon had an alcohol content of only 16%. Rewe-Zentral, a German supermarket, complained about this rule in a national court, which then asked the Court of Justice questions. The Court said that any product legally produced and sold in one EU country must be allowed onto the market of other EU countries. This is called the principle of “mutual recognition”.

Free movement of people

Grzelczyk

In addition to recognising the free movement of goods, the Court has also affirmed the free movement of people within the EU, for instance in Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre Public d'Aide Sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (2001).

A French student living in Belgium supported himself for the first three years of his studies and asked for a minimum income allowance in his fourth year. He was however denied the allowance because he was a foreign national. The Court found that this constituted unjust treatment, as EU citizenship gives people the right to equal treatment in law, regardless of their nationality.  

Ruiz Zambrano

A decade later, in Ruiz Zambrano (2011), the Court expanded on the concept of EU citizenship.

This case concerned two children born in Belgium with Belgian nationality. Their parents had Colombian nationality. The parents were threatened with deportation, which would have also had the effect of the children having to leave the EU. The Court ruled that EU countries should grant residence and a work permit to third-country parents whose minor and financially dependent children have that country’s nationality. Denying them these rights would deprive their children of the full enjoyment of their rights as EU citizens. This case reinforced the idea that EU citizenship extends certain rights not just to the individual but to their family members as well.

Individual Rights

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft

The Court tackled the issue of protecting individual rights in Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (1970).

A German company, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, challenged the EU’s agricultural export licensing system. It argued that the license system impeded its right to freely conduct business, as guaranteed by the German constitution.

The German court hearing the challenge asked the Court of Justice whether the EU is required to respect certain human rights standards. The Judges concluded that respect for fundamental rights is an essential part of the general principles of EU law, which the Court is responsible for upholding.

Defrenne

This principle was developed further in Defrenne v SABENA (1976).

An air hostess, Ms Defrenne, sued her former employer, the Belgian airline SABENA, claiming compensation for the loss she had suffered in terms of salary and other entitlements as a result of unequal remuneration of female and male members of the air crew performing identical duties. The Court ruled that the principle of equal pay for men and women could be relied on before national courts in cases between individuals and their employers. Ms Defrenne could use EU law in her case against her airline employer before her national court in order to ensure gender equality in the workplace.

Conclusion

These important rulings from the Court of Justice have greatly influenced the development of EU law and the protection of citizens’ rights. They demonstrate the EU’s commitment to justice, equality and the rule of law, shaping the legal landscape for all Member States and their citizens.