Osnova sekce
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student defines the notion and fundamental principles of the EU internal market.
- Student explains the legal foundations and institutional context of the internal market.
- Student identifies and compares the four freedoms of the internal market.
- Student assesses whether a national measure complies with internal market principles.
Compulsory EU Law
- TFEU, Articles 22-26
- Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos
- Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL
- Case 120/78 Cassis de Dijon
- Case C-55/94 Gebhard
Optional Information
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student interprets the legal framework of the free movement of goods under EU law.
- Student distinguishes between restrictions and justifications in the movement of goods.
- Student applies the CJEU’s case law to assess compliance of national measures with Article 34–36 TFEU.
- Student analyzes the role of internal taxation in relation to free movement of goods.
Compulsory EU Law
- TFEU, Articles 26-44, 110
- Case 8/74 Dassonville,
- Case C-267/91 Keck,
- Case C-110/05 Commission v. Italy.
Task to Consider
In preparation for the seminar, please see the draft amendment to the Czech Food Act (Chamber of Deputies 2017-2021, Press 502). Specifically, see the amendment as forwarded to the Senate. Focus on point 26 of the Senate press, which was to introduce §9b (p. 10 of the press) specifying the percentage of Czech products. Based on the abovementioned documents, assess whether the proposed amendment to the Food Act was in compliance with EU law.
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student explains the concept and scope of the free movement of persons.
- Student interprets the EU Citizens’ Rights Directive and its implications for residence rights.
- Student assesses justifications for restrictions on the free movement of persons.
- Student applies EU law to cases involving Union citizenship and residence of third-country nationals.
Compulsory EU Law
- TEU, Article 9
- TFEU, Articles 18-25
- Directive 2004/38/EC
- Case C-135/08, Rottmann
Task: Short Essay (600–800 words)
Topic: Discuss whether the CJEU’s approach to economically inactive EU citizens strikes an appropriate balance between individual rights and Member State concerns.
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student defines the legal foundation and scope of the free movement of workers.
- Student distinguishes between direct and indirect discrimination in employment-related cases.
- Student applies CJEU jurisprudence to factual scenarios involving worker mobility.
- Student evaluates the balance between workers’ rights and Member States’ regulatory autonomy.
Compulsory EU Law
- TFEU, Articles 45-48
- Regulation 492/2011
- Directive 2004/38/EC
- Case 53/81 Levin
- Case 66/85 Lawrie Blum
- Case C-415/93 Bosman
Task: Case Brief – CJEU, Case C-415/93 Bosman
Prepare a structured case brief (maximum 2 pages, single-spaced) of the judgment in Bosman (C-415/93).
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student describes the principles underlying the freedom of establishment.
- Student interprets provisions of the TFEU concerning establishment and cross-border activities.
- Student applies relevant case law to determine lawful and unlawful restrictions.
- Student analyzes how freedom of establishment interacts with national regulatory frameworks.
Compulsory EU Law
- TFEU, Articles 49-55
- Directive 2005/36
- Directive 2006/123
- Case C-2/74 Reyners
- Case C-221/89 Factortame
- Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou
- Case C-55/94 Gebhard
Task: Comparative Exercise
Students prepare a short comparative table (1 page) of two cases: Reyners, Gebhard.
Columns:
- Legal issue
- Restriction on establishment?
- Justification analysis
- Key principle established
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student identifies the scope and characteristics of the free movement of services.
- Student distinguishes between services and establishment under EU law.
- Student applies CJEU rulings to determine the legality of service-related national measures.
- Student evaluates the balance between economic freedoms and public interest justifications.
Compulsory EU Law
- TFEU, Articles 56-62
- Directive 2005/36
- Directive 2006/123
- Case C-33/74 Van Binsbergen
- Case C-186/87 Cowan
- C-137/09 Josemans
Task: Case-Based Problem
Cross-border digital consultancy and restrictions on service provision
Anna, a Finnish national, runs a small online consultancy in Helsinki that provides digital compliance services (GDPR advice). She wants to provide services to clients in Italy without establishing a permanent presence there. Italian law requires that providers of data protection consultancy must register in a national professional registry, foreign service providers must establish a physical office in Italy before offering services, foreign providers must pay a €2,500 administrative fee for temporary cross-border services, and online service providers must use an Italian VAT representative even for temporary services. Anna argues these rules violate Article 56 TFEU and the Services Directive (2006/123/EC).
Student Tasks (800–1,000 words): Identify which of the Italian requirements restrict the free movement of services. Apply relevant case law. Assess whether any restrictions can be justified. Explain the distinction between “establishment” and “services” in this scenario, referencing Gebhard.
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student explains the principles and legal foundation of capital and payment movements.
- Student interprets Articles 63–66 TFEU in the context of liberalization of capital flows.
- Student analyzes examples of restrictions and their justifications in national legislation.
- Student assesses the relationship between free movement of capital and financial regulation.
Compulsory EU Law
- TFEU, Articles 63-66, 75, 143-144, 215, 345
- Case 203/80 Casati
- Case 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone
- Case C-163/94, C-165/94 and C-250/94 Sanz de Lera
- Case C-101/05 Skatteverket
Task to Consider
Instructions for students (max. 300–400 words total):
Answer the following four short questions. Support your answers with references to the relevant Treaty provisions and case law.
- Question 1: Explain the difference between movements of capital and payments under EU law. Refer to Articles 63–66 TFEU and relevant case law.
- Question 2: Is a system of prior administrative authorisation for transferring money to another Member State compatible with EU law? Refer to Sanz de Lera and Casati.
- Question 3: Can Member States impose declaration or reporting obligations on cross-border cash payments? Refer to Luisi and Carbone and Skatteverket.
- Question 4: List two legitimate grounds on which restrictions on the free movement of capital may be justified under EU law.
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student identifies potential conflicts between internal market freedoms and fundamental rights.
- Student analyzes CJEU case law illustrating the balancing of freedoms and rights.
- Student evaluates proportionality in cases involving competing fundamental values.
- Student constructs legal arguments reconciling internal market rules with fundamental rights protection.
Compulsory EU Law
- TEU, Article 6
- Case C-112/00 Schmidberger
- C-36/02 Omega
- C-438/05 Viking and C-341/05 Laval
- C-208/09 Sayn Wittgenstein
Task to Consider
Case-based analytical essay, 800–1,000 words. EU internal market freedoms are not absolute and may come into conflict with fundamental rights protected under EU law and national constitutional traditions. Using Article 6 TEU and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, analyse how such conflicts are resolved. In your answer, discuss at least three of the following cases:
- Case C-112/00 Schmidberger
- Case C-36/02 Omega
- Case C-438/05 Viking and Case C-341/05 Laval
- Case C-208/09 Sayn-Wittgenstein
Your analysis should address the legal basis for protecting fundamental rights in EU law, the nature of the conflict between an internal market freedom and a fundamental right, the method used by the CJEU to balance competing interests, whether the Court’s approach provides adequate protection to both economic freedoms and fundamental rights.
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student defines the concept, objectives, and legal basis of EU competition law.
- Student applies Articles 101 and 102 TFEU to practical cases involving anti-competitive conduct.
- Student analyzes CJEU judgments on cartels and abuse of dominant position.
- Student assesses the enforcement mechanisms and institutional roles in competition law.
Compulsory EU Law
- TFEU, Articles 3, 101, 102
- EU Regulation 2022/1925: Digital Markets Act
- Case C-41/90 Höfner
- Case T-201/04 Microsoft
- Case C-97/08 Akzo Nobel
Task to Consider
Case-based analytical problem, 900–1,100 words
EU competition law aims to ensure undistorted competition within the internal market. Its rules apply not only to private undertakings but also, under certain conditions, to entities connected to the State, and increasingly interact with sector-specific regulation of digital markets. Using Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and the General Court, and Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 (Digital Markets Act), analyse the following issues:
- Explain the concept, objectives, and legal basis of EU competition law.
- Assess how Articles 101 and 102 TFEU apply to: cartel conduct, and abuse of a dominant position.
- Discuss the notion of an undertaking and its relevance for the personal scope of EU competition law.
- Analyse the enforcement mechanisms of EU competition law and the institutional roles of the Commission and EU courts.
Your answer should refer to and critically engage with relevant case law.
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student explains the system of EU merger control and its procedural framework.
- Student distinguishes between competition rules for private undertakings and Member States.
- Student interprets provisions on state monopolies and state aid within the internal market.
- Student evaluates the economic and policy rationale behind EU state aid control.
Compulsory EU Law
- TFEU, Article 106-109
- Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004
Task to Consider
Structured analytical problem, 900–1,100 words
EU competition law not only regulates the conduct of private undertakings but also addresses market power created or reinforced through mergers, state intervention, and public undertakings. In addition, the EU has developed a distinct system of state aid control reflecting both economic and policy considerations. Using Articles 106–109 TFEU and Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (EU Merger Regulation), analyse the following issues:
- Explain the system and procedural framework of EU merger control.
- Distinguish between competition rules applicable to private undertakings and those applicable to Member States and public undertakings.
- Interpret the rules on state monopolies and public undertakings within the internal market.
- Analyse the concept, rationale, and control of State aid under EU law.
Your answer should demonstrate an understanding of both the legal structure and the economic and policy objectives of EU competition law.
-
Learning Outcomes
- Student describes the institutional structure and objectives of the Economic and Monetary Union.
- Student explains the principles governing fiscal and banking union.
- Student analyzes the legal framework of the Stability and Growth Pact and related instruments.
- Student assesses current challenges and reforms within the EU’s economic governance frameworks
Compulsory EU Law
- TFEU, 119-144
- Case C-370/12 Pringle
- Case C-62/14 Gauweiler
- Case C-493/17 Weiss
Task to Consider
Short analytical essay, 700–900 words
The Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) represents a core element of EU integration, combining monetary centralisation with largely decentralised fiscal policies. Using Articles 119–144 TFEU and relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, analyse:
- the institutional structure and objectives of the EMU,
- the basic principles of the fiscal and banking union,
- the legal framework of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP),
- the role of the CJEU in addressing crisis-related measures and reforms of EU economic governance.
Your answer should refer to at least two of the following cases: Case C-370/12 Pringle, Case C-62/14 Gauweiler, Case C-493/17 Weiss.
-
This short self-assessment allows you to reflect on how well you have achieved the learning outcomes of European Law II. The activity is non-graded and intended solely for self-reflection and exam preparation.
Self-Assessment Quiz
Question 1 – Short Answer
Explain the difference between competition rules applicable to private undertakings and competition rules applicable to Member States under EU law.
Question 2 – Multiple Choice
Which provision of the TFEU forms the legal basis for EU merger control?
A. Article 101 TFEU
B. Article 102 TFEU
C. Article 106 TFEU
D. Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004Question 3 – True / False
Article 107(1) TFEU prohibits all forms of State aid without exception.
☐ True
☐ FalseBriefly justify your answer.
Question 4 – Case-Based Question
A Member State grants financial support to a national airline to prevent its bankruptcy. Identify two cumulative criteria that must be fulfilled for this measure to qualify as State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU. Name one possible ground under which such aid could be declared compatible with the internal market.
Question 5 – Short Analytical Question
Briefly explain the objective of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and identify one legal challenge related to EU economic governance addressed by the Court of Justice.
