EUROPEAN UNION LAW – 2017-2018 – SEMESTER 1
REFERRAL / DEFERRAL COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT – PART TWO
Answer TWO questions.
LENGTH: 2,400 words maximum (1,200 words maximum for each question answered).
Sources: A bibliography must be given at the end and any other sources
acknowledged. References should be given at the bottom of each page as footnotes.
Plagiarism (ie. direct copying from books etc. or representing other writers’ work as
your own) will result in a FAIL. All sources used must be properly acknowledged.
Last submission date: – Monday 11th December 2017 – 13.00 deadline
Submission of Coursework
To submit your assignment:
YOU MUST include your name and student ID on the first page of your assignment.
Log on to Blackboard at http://learning.westminster.ac.uk;
Go to the relevant module Blackboard site;
Click on the ‘Submit Coursework’ link in the navigation menu on the left-hand side, as
advised by the module teaching team;
Click on the link for the relevant assignment;
Follow the instructions.
All coursework must be submitted by 13.00 on the due date.
If you submit your coursework late but within 24 hours or one working day of the
specified deadline, 10% of the overall marks available for that element of
assessment will be deducted, as a penalty for late submission, except for work
which is marked in the range 40 – 49%, in which case the mark will be capped at
the pass mark (40%).
If you submit your coursework more than 24 hours or more than one working
day after the specified deadline you will be given a mark of zero for the work in
The University’s mitigating circumstances procedures relating to the nonsubmission or late submission of coursework apply to all coursework.
Answer TWO of the following 4 questions. Each question carries equal marks.
Fiona is employed by Jet plc in their secretarial department. She has worked for the
company for ten years. During that time her pay has risen by only half the amount of
that of Gordon who is employed in the sales department and who has also been with
the firm for ten years. When they joined the company they had similar qualifications
and experience relevant to their jobs. Most members of the secretarial department
are female and most members of the sales department are male. Fiona is arguing
that she should be receiving the same salary as Gordon.
Fiona also discovered that members of the sales department have use of a company
car and receive a petrol allowance. She would also like to receive this but was told
that these are not relevant for employees in the secretarial department.
Sally works part-time in the secretarial department. She applied to join the
company’s pension scheme but was told that it was not available for part-time
employees. The company stated that it is uneconomic to include part-timers in the
scheme as most only work for the company for two or three years before they leave
to have a family.
Vera, who also worked part-time in the secretarial department applied for a more
highly paid job in the sales department. The interview panel asked her: “Can you
cope with sales? This is not really a woman’s job.” Instead the company appointed a
male applicant to the sales job.
Fiona, Sally and Vera are now complaining about their treatment by the company,
arguing that they have been subject to sex discrimination.
Advise Fiona, Sally and Vera on the basis whereby EU law on sex discrimination (Art
157 TFEU) can be argued to the above events and critically assess whether each
could be successful in actions against the company for sex discrimination.
Alfredo is a small producer of Spanish wine and he also has fruit orchards of
oranges and lemons all of which he trades within the European Union. Spanish
orange and lemon orchards were infected with an insect pest and the EU issued a
Notice requiring a health inspection for all imports of Spanish oranges and lemons.
After a few months the outbreak was brought under control.
Luckily Alfredo’s orchards were not affected. However, when he attempted to import
some oranges into France he was required to pay for a health inspection. The
French authorities still insisted that Spanish oranges and lemons posed a health risk.
Alfredo also imported oranges and lemons into the U.K. At the port he was required
to pay Produce Ltd. a handling fee for unloading and checking the goods. Produce
Ltd have been appointed by the U.K. authorities for this purpose.
Alfredo produces two types of wine. Rojo is a higher alcohol variety and Blanco is a
standard table wine. When he imported Rojo into France he found that it was subject
to twice the level of tax than that levied on French wines of nearly the same strength.
He was told that French wines have a lower level of tax in order to help small wine
producers in France to stay in business.
He imported both Blanco and Rojo into the United Kingdom. The U.K. authorities
imposed a much higher tax on Blanco that on beers of around the same strength
most of which were produced in the U.K. Rojo was subject to the same tax as on
certain types of spirits sold in the U.K.
Critically discuss and advise Alfredo as to how the law on the free movement of goods
(as applied by Articles 30 and 110 TFEU) can be argued to the events in the above
“A law of competition is necessary for an effective internal market within the EU”.
Critically discuss in relation to the scope and operation of Article 101 TFEU, and, by
referring to case examples, evaluate how successful Article 101 has been in ensuring
Nutrex is a company based in Austria involved in the manufacture of health foods.
They trade their products throughout the EU but have recently faced the following
(a) Nutrex use certain additives (that they claim aid slimming) in their products.
However they find that they cannot sell their products in Germany as German law
requires all health food products sold in Germany to contain only pure ingredients
and no additives. Germany states that this is in the best interests of German
consumers who have a right to expect that health foods are free from impurities.
(b) Nutrex produce a health drink called “Orango”. Production was halted when an
infection broke out in the Nutrex factory and the drink was declared unsafe by health
officials. As a result the EU banned all imports of the drink. Normal production has
been restored and the ban was lifted, but Italy have refused the import of Orango
arguing that it still poses a health risk. They said that this was necessary for the
protection of children.
(c) France required that the drink be sold in glass bottles that can be recycled.
Nutrex produce their drink in cans and are objecting to the requirement for bottles.
(d) Nutrex have also encountered problems with selling their products in the UK. This
related to a UK law that prevented slimming products from being advertised in
magazines that might be read by children or teenagers. This restricted Nutrex from
advertising their products in UK magazines. Nutrex argued that this makes it more
difficult to compete with their products in the UK.
Critically discuss how EU law on the free movement of goods (as applied by Articles
34 and 36 TFEU and associated case law) can be applied to the above events and
advise Nutrex on whether the restrictions they have encountered are likely to be in
breach of EU law.
SOURCES / READING LIST
1 Steiner & Woods, “EU Law”, 12th Edition, 2014, chapters (check contents).
2 Craig & De Burca,”EC Law: Text,Cases,& Materials”,6th edition, 2015, (check
3 Wyatt & Dashwood,”European Community Law”,chapters (check contents).
4 Weatherill,S,”Cases and Materials on EU Law”, 11th edition 2014, chapters (check
5 A Kaczorowska, “European Union Law”, 1st Edition 2009, Cavendish
6 Ward “A Critical Introduction to European Law”,3rd Edition,2009,Cambridge.
7 Green,Hartley and Usher,”The Legal Foundations of the Single
8 Mathijsen,”A Guide to European Union Law”,Part Two,chapters 1,6,7,8.
RECENT JOURNAL ARTICLES
Please note: The following ELR and CMLR journal articles can be accessed through
the Library Search option. Type ”European Law Review” or “Common Market Law
Review” into the box, click on the relevant search result and then log in through the
resource (eg Westlaw) to access the article.
Journal articles are also available in paper format in the library (Regent Campus
Library, Little Tichfield Street).
1 Ioannis Lianos, “In Memoriam Keck: the reformation of the EU law on the free
movement of goods”
(European Law Review 2015, 40(2), 225-248)
2 Peter Oliver, “Of Trailers and Jet Skis: Is the Case Law on Article 34 TFEU Hurtling
in a New Direction”? (Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 33, Issue 5 2011)
3 Graham C, “Methods for determining whether an agreement restricts competition:
comment on Allianz Hungaria”
(European. Law. Review 2013, 38(4), 542-551)
4 Hojnik, J, “Free Movement of Goods in a Labyrinth: Can Buy Irish survive the crisis?”
(Common Market Law Review 49: 291–326, 2012)
5 Krenn, C, “A Missing piece in the Horizontal Effect “Jigsaw”:
Horizontal Direct Effect and The Free Movement of Goods”
(Common Market Law Review 49: 177–216, 2012).
6 Koldinská K, “Case law of the European Court of Justice on sex discrimination 2006-
(Common Market Law Review 48: 1599-1638, 2011)
7 Bailey D, “Restrictions of Competition by object under Article 101 TFEU”
(Common Market Law Review 49: 559-600, 2012)
8 Spaventa E, “Leaving Keck behind? The free movement of goods after the rulings
in Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos”
(European Law Review 2009)
9 Lianos I, “Collusion in vertical relations under Article 81 EC”
(Common Market Law Review 45: 1027-1077, 2008)
10 Brouwer, O, Goyder J, Mes D, “Developments in EC competition law in 2007: An
(Common Market Law Review 45: 1167-1205, 2008)
11 Wilsher D, “Does Keck discrimination make any sense? An assessment of the
non-discrimination principle within the European Single Market.”
(European Law Review 2008, 33(1), 3-22)
OLDER JOURNAL ARTICLES
1 DEVELOPMENTS IN EC COMPETITION LAW IN 2005: AN OVERVIEW
SVEN B. VOLCKER
Common Market Law Review; Oct 2006, Vol.43: p1409-1446.
2 DEVELOPMENTS IN EC COMPETITION LAW IN 2004: AN OVERVIEW
SVEN B. VOLCKER
Common Market Law Review; Dec 2005, Vol.42: p1691-1736.
3 Ellis E,”Recent Developments in European Community Sex Equality Law:
(Common Market Law Review,April 1998,pages 379-408).*
4 Whiteford E,”Lost in the mists of time: The ECJ and occupational pensions”:
(Common Market Law Review,1995,pages 801-840).*
5 Rivas J, & Stroud,F, “Developments in EC competition law in 2001: An overview”.
(Common Market Law Review, October 2002,pages 1101-1145).
6 Monti G, “Article 81 EC and public policy”
(Common Market Law Review, October 2002,pages 1057-1099).
7 Koutrakos P,”On groceries,alcohol and olive oil: more on the free movement of
goods after Keck”. (European Law Review, August 2001,pages 391-407).*
8 Mortelmans K,”Towards convergence in the application of the rules on free
movement and competition?”
(Common Market Law Review,June 2001,pages 613-649).
9 Monti G,”The scope of collective dominance under Article 82 EC”.
(Common Market Law Review,February 2001,pages 131-157.*
10 Whish R,”Regulation 2790/99: The Commission’s “new style” block exemption for
(Common Market Law Review,August 2000,pages 887-924).
Last Updated on February 10, 2019 by EssayPro