Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sources of Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Individual Rights in EU Law

Abstract

As the questions concerning what makes up a right and those concerning enforceability are separate, one may not per se deduce anything about rights from the nature of the legal sources from which they derive. Another matter is that different sources of rights often mean different types of rights. For instance, rights derived from regulations will typically be, or at least initially appear, far more specific than rights derived from general principles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Prechal (1997), p. 5.

  2. 2.

    Case 34/73 Fratelli Variola [1973] ECR 981, para 8; cf., also, Case C-253/00 Muñoz [20002] ECR I-7289, para 27.

  3. 3.

    Cf., for a rather opposite view, von Oettingen (2010), p. 168.

  4. 4.

    Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak in Case C-101/08 Audiolux [2009] ECR I-9823, para 121; with reference to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22); Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16); and Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

  5. 5.

    Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, para 95.

  6. 6.

    Cf. Picod (2013), p. 83.

  7. 7.

    Case 44/79 Hauer [1979] ECR 3727, para 17.

  8. 8.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389).

  9. 9.

    Cf. Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) 23.

  10. 10.

    The legal literature sometimes argues that the European Union law notion of individual rights is a sort of ‘minimum’ requirement, meaning that national concepts of protected interests in torts, etc., must be applied in light of the principle of equivalence. As Engstroem suggests: ‘The Court’s interpretation of the concept of conferral of rights has been understood quite narrowly. This makes it unlikely that national law has a narrower concept. It is plausible that the national court can (or has to, under the principle of equivalence) apply national rules on how to determine the protective scope, as those often will be more beneficial to the individual’ (Engstroem 2009, p. 226). It makes little sense however to consider the Union law right as ‘widened’ through national law. The point must therefore be that if one is faced with an interest which does not represent a Union law right—but which is still somehow rooted in Union law—national law on, e.g., liability will have to accept damages claims where those interests are negatively affected, if national law in general accepts damages claims where comparable interests are so affected. This is, however, a consequence of the general requirement of equivalence, not of a Union law right being some sort of ‘minimum’.

  11. 11.

    Cf. Póltorak (2015), p. 116.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1), Article 39. Cf., now, Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).

  13. 13.

    T-415/03 Cofradía [2005] ECR II-4355, upheld in Case C-6/06 P Cofradía [2007] ECR I-164 (Summ.pub.).

  14. 14.

    T-415/03 Cofradía [2005] ECR II-4355, para 86.

  15. 15.

    Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119.

  16. 16.

    Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat (OJ, English Special Edition 1963–64, p. 185), as amended by Council Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69) and Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13). Cf., now, Directive 2004/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 21 April 2004 repealing certain directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption and amending council directives 89/662/EEC and 92/118/EEC and council decision 95/408/EC (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 33).

  17. 17.

    Cf. Case C-102/96 Commission v Germany [1998] ECR I-6871.

  18. 18.

    Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak in Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119, paras 75–78.

  19. 19.

    Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119, para 22.

  20. 20.

    Cf. Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur [1996] ECR I-1029, para 23.

  21. 21.

    Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat (OJ, English Special Edition 1963–64, p. 185), as amended by Council Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69). Cf., now, Directive 2004/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 21 April 2004 repealing certain directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption and amending council directives 89/662/EEC and 92/118/EEC and council decision 95/408/EC (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 33).

  22. 22.

    Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13).

  23. 23.

    Cf., inter alia, Case 5/77 Tedeschi [1977] ECR 1555, para 35; Case 227/82 Van Bennekom [1983] ECR 3883, para 35; Case C-37/92 Vanacker and Lesage [1993] ECR I-4947, para 9; Case C-323/93 Centre d’insémination de la Crespelle [1994] ECR I-5077, para 31; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others [1996] ECR I-3457, para 25; Case C-324/99 DaimlerChrysler [2001] ECR I-9897, para 32; and Case C-322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband [2003] ECR I-14887, para 64.

  24. 24.

    Cf. Case C-322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband [2003] ECR I-14887, para 64; Case C-309/02 Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft and Spitz [2004] ECR I-11763, para 53; and Case C-145/02 Denkavit [2005] ECR I-51, para 22.

  25. 25.

    C-131/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-825.

  26. 26.

    Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak in Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119, para 69.

  27. 27.

    Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119, para 24.

  28. 28.

    Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119, para 23.

  29. 29.

    Namely, Nettesheim (1999), p. 43.

  30. 30.

    Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak in Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119, footnote 33.

  31. 31.

    Namely, Beljin (2000), p. 139.

  32. 32.

    Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak in Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119, footnote 33.

  33. 33.

    Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak in Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-2119, para 72.

  34. 34.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389).

  35. 35.

    Case 29/69 Stauder [1969] ECR 419, para 7.

  36. 36.

    Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125, para 4.

  37. 37.

    Cf., in general, Sánchez (2012), pp. 1573–1575.

  38. 38.

    Cf., e.g., Dubout (2014). Some particular questions arise for the United Kingdom and Poland, due to reservations under the Lisbon Protocol 30 (Protocol on the Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to the United Kingdom (OJ 1997 C 305, p. 156)). Although this Protocol has been a source of uncertainty with respect to the status of Charter rights in those countries (cf., in particular, House of Commons, European Scrutiny Committee, The application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the UK: a state of confusion, Forty-third Report of Session 2013–14, Published 2 April 2014), it should be noted that there is no doubt that the Charter is also applicable in these countries regardless of the Protocol, cf. Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 NS [2011] ECR I-13905, paras 116–122. The Protocol will impact the interpretation of the substantive rights set out in Title IV of the Charter (on solidarity). In Bonda, a preliminary reference from the Polish Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), the Court of Justice dealt with the right not to be tried and punished twice for the same offense (ne bis in idem), without linking this to Article 50 of the Charter; instead it referred to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 4(1) of Protocol 7 (cf. Case C-489/10 Bonda [2012] (OJ 2012 C 217, p. 2) (EU:C:2012:319), inter alia, paras 36 et seq). It still seems unlikely that this was due to considerations on the applicability of the Charter as such, even though the Advocate General had based her opinion on the prohibition against double punishment as set out in the Charter, cf. Opinion of Advocate General in Case C-489/10 Bonda [2012] (OJ 2012 C 217, p. 2) (EU:C:2012:319), paras 32 et seq.

  39. 39.

    Cf., in general, Groussot et al. (2011).

  40. 40.

    Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17).

  41. 41.

    Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-34/09 Zambrano [2011] ECR I-1177.

  42. 42.

    Case C-617/10 Fransson [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 7 May 2013) (OJ 2013 C 114, p. 7) (EU:C:2013:105).

  43. 43.

    Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

  44. 44.

    Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Case C-617/10 Fransson [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 7 May 2013) (OJ 2013 C 114, p. 7) (EU:C:2013:105), para 64.

  45. 45.

    Case C-617/10 Fransson [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 7 May 2013) (OJ 2013 C 114, p. 7) (EU:C:2013:105), paras 24–28.

  46. 46.

    Case C-617/10 Fransson [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 7 May 2013) (OJ 2013 C 114, p. 7) (EU:C:2013:105), para 18.

  47. 47.

    Case C-617/10 Fransson [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 7 May 2013) (OJ 2013 C 114, p. 7) (EU:C:2013:105), para 19. Cf. on the topic of ‘implementing EU law’ also, Case C-390/12 Pfleger [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 28 April 2014) (OJ 2014 C 194, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:281), paras 30–36.

  48. 48.

    Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 36).

  49. 49.

    Case C-418/11 Texdata [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 26 September 2013) (OJ 2013 C 344, p. 10) (EU:C:2013:588), paras 71–75.

  50. 50.

    Case C-206/13 Siragusa [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 6 March 2014) (OJ 2014 C 129, p. 6) (EU:C:2014:126), para 25.

  51. 51.

    Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) 35.

  52. 52.

    Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) 35.

  53. 53.

    Opinion of Advocate General Crux Villalón in Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 15 January 2014) (OJ 2014 C 85, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2), paras 43–56.

  54. 54.

    Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 15 January 2014) (OJ 2014 C 85, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2).

  55. 55.

    Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 15 January 2014) (OJ 2014 C 85, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2), para 47.

  56. 56.

    Case C-356/12 Glatzel [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 22 May 2014) (OJ 2014 C 253, p. 5) (EU:C:2014:350), para 78.

  57. 57.

    Cf., inter alia, Lenaerts (2012), p. 399.

  58. 58.

    Cf., similarly, Lenaerts (2012), p. 400.

  59. 59.

    Cf., e.g., Guðmundsdóttir (2015), pp. 687–688.

  60. 60.

    Cf. Chap. 16.

  61. 61.

    Cf. Sect. 15.3.2.

  62. 62.

    See, instead, e.g., Tridimas (2006).

  63. 63.

    Joined Cases 9 and 12/60 Vloeberghs v High Authority [1961] ECR 199.

  64. 64.

    Hofmann et al. (2011), p. 178.

  65. 65.

    Cf., e.g., Craig (2012), pp. 549 (footnote 1) and 549 et seq; and, including comparisons between, mainly, European Union, English and French law, e.g., Schønberg (2000); and Thomas (2000). On cases, cf., e.g., Case C-152/88 Sofrimport [1990] ECR I-2477; Case T-43/98 Emesa Sugar v Council [2001] ECR II-3519; Case T-174/00 Biret [2002] ECR II-17; Case T-210/00 Biret [2002] ECR II-47; and Case T-271/04 Citymo [2007] ECR II-1375.

  66. 66.

    Craig (2012), p. 553.

  67. 67.

    Cf. Sharpston (1990), p. 92.

  68. 68.

    Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02 Di Lenardo and Dilexport [2004] ECR I-6911.

  69. 69.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1). Cf., now, Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

  70. 70.

    Commission Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 2001 L 126, p. 6).

  71. 71.

    Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02 Di Lenardo and Dilexport [2004] ECR I-6911, para 58.

  72. 72.

    Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02 Di Lenardo and Dilexport [2004] ECR I-6911, para 70.

  73. 73.

    Cf. Case C-443/07 P Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission [2008] ECR I-10945, para 91; and Case C-496/08 P Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament [2010] ECR I-1793, para 93.

  74. 74.

    Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, para 147; cf., also, e.g., Case C-506/03 Germany v Commission (unpub.) (EU:C:2005:715) para 58; Case C-47/07 P Masdar [2008] ECR I-9761, para 81; and Case C-213/06 P EAR v Karatzoglou [2007] ECR I-6733, para 33.

  75. 75.

    Case 120/86 Mulder [1988] ECR 2321.

  76. 76.

    Case 170/86 Von Deetzen [1988] ECR 2355.

  77. 77.

    Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061.

  78. 78.

    Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061, para 15; Case C-264/90 Wehrs [1992] ECR I-6285, paras 13–15; and Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94 Quiller and Heusmann v Council and Commission [1997] ECR II-2247, paras 53–57 subsequently confirmed the legitimate expectations of a further group of ‘SLOM’ producers (‘SLOM III’). (Cf., on the categorisation of different ‘SLOM’-producers as claimants, e.g., Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Joined Cases C-162/01 P and C-163/01 P Bouma and Beusmans v Council and Commission [2003] ECR I-4509, paras 46–51.) In his opinion in Wehrs, Advocate General Lenz recalled that the Court of Justice had held, in Mulder, that the principle of legitimate expectations was violated where the circumstances were such that ‘the economic operator was encouraged by a measure of the Community to suspend marketing … it was not foreseeable that the (non-marketing) undertaking given would prevent the producer concerned from resuming his activities on its expiry … the provision in question affects him specifically precisely because he availed himself of the possibilities offered by the Community legislation’ (Opinion of Advocate General Lenz in Case C-264/90 Wehrs [1992] ECR I-6285, para 24).

  79. 79.

    Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder v Council and Commission [2000] ECR I-203.

  80. 80.

    Cf., also, Case 238/78 Ireks-Arkady v Council and Commission [1979] ECR 2955, para 11; Joined Cases 241, 242 and 245 to 250/78 DGV v Council and Commission [1979] ECR 3017, para 11; Joined Cases 261 and 262/78 Interquell Staerke v Council and Commission [1979] ECR 3045, para 14; and Joined Cases 64 and 113/76, 167 and 239/78, 27, 28 and 45/79 P. Dumortier Frères [1979] ECR 3091, para 11.

  81. 81.

    Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061, para 13.

  82. 82.

    Case T-203/96 Embassy Limousines [1998] ECR II-4239.

  83. 83.

    Case T-203/96 Embassy Limousines [1998] ECR II-4239, para 74.

  84. 84.

    Case T-203/96 Embassy Limousines [1998] ECR II-4239, para 75.

  85. 85.

    Case T-203/96 Embassy Limousines [1998] ECR II-4239, para 76.

  86. 86.

    The principle of legitimate expectations is occasionally seen alongside a notion of ‘vested’ or ‘acquired’ rights. Theories of ‘vested rights ’ arguably take inspiration from England and the works of, inter alia, A.V. Dicey, cf. Dicey (1890). This is most notably the case in the field of international private law, or the rules on conflicts of laws. It was argued by Dicey that English courts would in fact never apply foreign law, as this would be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. However, the court could recognize that individuals had been vested with certain rights in foreign jurisdictions, which the English courts should then respect. In European Union law, ‘vested rights’ seem to be a sort of sub-principle under the larger heading of a fundamental principle of legal certainty , as the idea of ‘vested rights’ is a variation on the question of retroactivity, cf., e.g., Raitio (2008), pp. 53 et seq. As already noted by other scholars, the difficulty with the theory of vested rights is the need to map out factors to explain what constitutes such a right and to explain why it is ‘vested’, cf. Hartley (2007), p. 147. The theory appears not to add anything to the principle of legitimate expectations, and namely how that principle grants individual rights.

  87. 87.

    Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02 Di Lenardo and Dilexport [2004] ECR I-6911, para 70.

  88. 88.

    Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen [2001] ECR II-3143.

  89. 89.

    Cf. Sect. 12.4.2.1.

  90. 90.

    Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen [2001] ECR II-3143, para 29.

  91. 91.

    Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen [2001] ECR II-3143, para 30.

  92. 92.

    Cf. Sect. 12.4.2.

  93. 93.

    Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen [2001] ECR II-3143, paras 40–46.

  94. 94.

    Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen [2001] ECR II-3143, para 77.

  95. 95.

    Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen [2001] ECR II-3143, para 82.

  96. 96.

    Case C-492/01 Dieckmann & Hansen (Unpub.) (OJ 2002 C 44, p. 8).

  97. 97.

    Cf. Sect. 16.3.4.

  98. 98.

    Biondi and Farley (2009), p. 122.

  99. 99.

    Case 74/74 CNTA v Commission [1975] ECR 533.

  100. 100.

    Case 74/74 CNTA v Commission [1975] ECR 533, para 38.

  101. 101.

    Case 74/74 CNTA v Commission [1974] ECR 533, para 42.

  102. 102.

    Case 74/74 CNTA v Commission [1976] ECR 797.

  103. 103.

    Cf. Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschel v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen [1977] ECR 1753, para 7.

  104. 104.

    Joined Cases 64 and 113/76, 167 and 239/78, 27, 28 and 45/78 P. Dumortier Frères [1979] ECR 3091, para 9.

  105. 105.

    Case T-56/00 Dole Fresh Fruit International v Commission and Council [2003] ECR II-577, para 73.

  106. 106.

    Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-3991, appealed and set aside on admissibility, cf. Case C-51/05 P Commission v Cantina sociale di Dolianova and others [2008] ECR I-5341. A somewhat particular example is offered by Case C-115/08 ČEZ [2009] ECR I-10265, in which there were national limitations on when an individual could prohibit bothersome—i.e. noisy, smelly, etc.—activities on a neighbouring property insofar as, inter alia, the interference was caused by an officially authorized installation. For properties close to the border, however, there were no similar limitations with respect to neighbours in other countries. The Court of Justice found, in essence, that the principle of prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of nationality precluded that national legislation widen the property rights of individuals in other countries.

  107. 107.

    Cf., e.g., Craig (2012), pp. 496 et seq.

  108. 108.

    Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-3991. Cf. Sect. 12.1.

  109. 109.

    Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-3991, para 84.

  110. 110.

    Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-3991, para 160, with references to Case C-259/87 Greece v Commission [1990] ECR I-2845 (Summ.pub), para 26; Case T-171/99 Corus UK v Commission [2001] ECR II-2967, para 55; and Joined Cases T-44/01, T-119/01 and T-126/01 Vieira v Commission [2003] ECR II-1209, para 86.

  111. 111.

    Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-3991, paras 161–162.

  112. 112.

    Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-3991, paras 160 and 162.

  113. 113.

    Joined Cases 43, 45 and 48/59 Von Lachmüller and Others [1960] ECR 463.

  114. 114.

    Case T-514/93 Cobrecaf [1995] ECR II-621.

  115. 115.

    Case T-178/98 Fresh Marine [2000] ECR II-3331, appealed and damages upheld, cf. Case C-472/00 P Fresh Marine [2003] ECR I-7541.

  116. 116.

    Case T-514/93 Cobrecaf [1995] ECR II-621, para 70.

  117. 117.

    Case T-178/98 Fresh Marine [2000] ECR II-3331, appealed and damages upheld, cf. Case C-472/00 P Fresh Marine [2003] ECR I-7541.

  118. 118.

    Case T-178/98 Fresh Marine [2000] ECR II-3331, para 82.

  119. 119.

    Case T-212/03 MyTravel [2008] ECR II-1967.

  120. 120.

    Case T-342/99 Airtours v Commission [2002] ECR II-2585.

  121. 121.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (Official Journal L 395, p. 1), cf. now Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (Official Journal L 24, p. 1).

  122. 122.

    Case T-212/03 MyTravel [2008] ECR II-1967, para 50.

  123. 123.

    Case C-269/90 Technische Universität München [1991] ECR I-5469, para 14; Case T-167/94 Nölle v Council and Commission [1995] ECR II-2589, paras 73–76; order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-369/03 Arizona Chemical and Others v Commission [2005] ECR II-5839, para 88; Case T-285/03 Agraz and Others v Commission [2005] ECR II-1063, para 49 (appealed and set aside in Case C-243/05 P Agraz and Others v Commission [2006] ECR I-10833); and Case T-231/97 New Europe Consulting and Brown v Commission [1999] ECR II-2403, paras 37–45; cf. Case T-212/03 MyTravel [2008] ECR II-1967, para 49.

  124. 124.

    Case C-47/07 P Masdar [2008] ECR I-9761, para 92.

  125. 125.

    Case C-47/07 P Masdar [2008] ECR I-9761, para 95.

  126. 126.

    Case C-47/07 P Masdar [2008] ECR I-9761, para 93.

  127. 127.

    Case C-47/07 P Masdar [2008] ECR I-9761, para 59.

  128. 128.

    Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357, para 40.

  129. 129.

    Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357.

  130. 130.

    Joined Cases C-178, C-179, C-188, C-189 and C-190/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I-4845, para 45.

  131. 131.

    Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori [1992] ECR I-3325.

  132. 132.

    Joined Cases C-178, C-179, C-188, C-189 and C-190/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I-4845, para 40.

  133. 133.

    Joined Cases C-178, C-179, C-188, C-189 and C-190/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I-4845, para 41.

  134. 134.

    Case 57/65 Alfons Lütticke I [1966] ECR 205 (English edition).

  135. 135.

    Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12), Article 4(1).

  136. 136.

    Case C-578/08 Chakroun [2010] ECR I-1839, para 41.

  137. 137.

    Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 15 January 2014) (OJ 2014 C 85, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2). Cf. Sect. 15.3.2.

  138. 138.

    Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 15 January 2014) (OJ 2014 C 85, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2), para 45.

  139. 139.

    Case C-555/07 Kücükdeveci [2010] ECR I-365.

  140. 140.

    Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 15 January 2014) (OJ 2014 C 85, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2), para 47.

  141. 141.

    Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29).

  142. 142.

    Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 15 January 2014) (OJ 2014 C 85, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2), para 49.

  143. 143.

    Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 15 January 2014) (OJ 2014 C 85, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2), paras 73–80.

  144. 144.

    Case C-176/12 Association de médiation sociale [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 15 January 2014) (OJ 2014 C 85, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2), para 50.

  145. 145.

    Cf. Rott (2005), pp. 343–344.

  146. 146.

    Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51), Article 1(2).

  147. 147.

    Case C-236/92 Comitato [1994] ECR I-483.

  148. 148.

    Case 126/86 Zaera [1987] ECR 3697, para 11.

  149. 149.

    Cf. Claes (2006), p. 71 (footnote 8).

  150. 150.

    Cf., e.g., Koch (1986), p. 470.

  151. 151.

    Cf., e.g. Zakrzewski (2005), pp. 105–106.

  152. 152.

    Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld [1996] ECR I-5403.

  153. 153.

    Case C-403/98 Monte Arcuso [2001] ECR I-103.

  154. 154.

    Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures (OJ 1985 L 93, p. 1) and of Article 5(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures (OJ 1991 L 218, p. 1). Cf., now, in general, Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

  155. 155.

    Case C-403/98 Monte Arcuso [2001] ECR I-103, para 27.

  156. 156.

    Nolte (1994), pp. 196–197.

  157. 157.

    Case C-467/01 Eribrand [2003] ECR I-6471.

  158. 158.

    Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/94 of 26 July 1994 (OJ 1994 L 191, p. 5). Cf., now, Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (Recast) (OJ 2009 L 186, p. 1).

  159. 159.

    Case C-467/01 Eribrand [2003] ECR I-6471, para 59.

  160. 160.

    Case C-131/97 Carbonari [1999] ECR I-1103.

  161. 161.

    Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive 75/363/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1982 L 43, p. 21). Cf., now, Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

  162. 162.

    Case C-131/97 Carbonari [1999] ECR I-1103, paras 45–46.

  163. 163.

    Case C-131/97 Carbonari [1999] ECR I-1103, para 52.

  164. 164.

    Case C-441/99 Gharehveran [2001] ECR I-7687.

  165. 165.

    Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1). Cf., now, Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).

  166. 166.

    Case C-441/99 Gharehveran [2001] ECR I-7687, para 44.

  167. 167.

    Case C-365/98 Brinkmann [2008] ECR I-4619.

  168. 168.

    Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur [1996] ECR I-1029, paras 45–47.

  169. 169.

    Case C-352/98 P Bergaderm [2000] ECR I-5291, para 40.

  170. 170.

    Cf., e.g., Hilson (2005), pp. 692–693.

  171. 171.

    Case 41/74 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337, para 7.

  172. 172.

    Case 82/77 Van Tiggele [1978] ECR 25; and Case 27/80 Fietje [1980] ECR 3839.

  173. 173.

    Case 130/80 Kelderman [1981] ECR 527, para 14.

  174. 174.

    Cf. Case C-205/99 Analir [2001] ECR I-1271, para. 38.

References

  • Beljin S (2000) Staatshaftung im Europarecht. Heylans, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • Biondi A, Farley M (2009) The right to damages in European law. Kluwer European law collection, vol 5. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Austin-Boston-Chicago-New York-The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Claes M (2006) The national courts’ mandate in the European constitution. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2012) EU administrative law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicey AV (1890) On private international law as a branch of the law of England. LQ Rev 6:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubout E (2014) The protection of fundamental rights and the allocation of competences in the EU, a clash of constitutional logics. In: Azoulai L (ed) The question of competence in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 193–211

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engstroem J (2009) The Europeanisation of remedies and procedures through judge-made law: can a Trojan horse achieve effectiveness? Experiences of the Swedish Judiciary. Dissertation, European University Institute, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Groussot X et al (2011) The scope of application of EU fundamental rights on Member States’ action: in search of certainty in EU adjudication. Eric Stein Working Paper 1/2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Guðmundsdóttir D (2015) A renewed emphasis on the Charter’s distinction between rights and principles: is a doctrine of judicial restraint more appropriate? CML Rev 52:685–719

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley TC (2007) The foundations of European Community law, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilson C (2005) The role of discretion in EC non-contractual liability. CML Rev 42:677–695

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann H et al (2011) Administrative law and policy of the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koch CH (1986) Judicial review of administrative discretion. GWL Rev 54:469–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2012) Exploring the limits of the EU Charter of fundamental rights. EConstL Rev 8:375–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Nettesheim M (1999) Die mietgliedstaatliche Durchfürung von EG-Riechtlinjen. Dunckel & Humboldt, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolte G (1994) General principles of German and European administrative law. MLR 57:191–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picod F (2013) Le statut des particuliers, désormais titulaires de droits individuels. In: Court of Justice of the European Union, 50th Anniversary of the Judgment in Van Gend en Loos, 1963–2013. Office des publications de l’Union européenne, Luxembourg, pp 81–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Póltorak N (2015) European Union rights in national court. European Monographs, vol 91. Wolters Kluwers, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S (1997) EC requirements for an effective remedy. In: Biondi A, Lonbay J (eds) Remedies for breach of EC law. Wiley, Chichester, pp 3–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Raitio J (2008) The principle of legal certainty as a general principle of EU law. In: Bernitz U et al (eds) General principles of EC law in a process of development, Reports from a conference in Stockholm 23–24 March 2007, organised by the Swedish Network for European Legal Studies. European Monographs, vol 53. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, pp 47–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Rott P (2005) A new social contract law for public services? – Consequences from regulation of services of general economic interest in the EC. ERCL 1:323–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez SI (2012) The Court and the Charter: the impact of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on the ECJ’s approach to fundamental rights. CML Rev 49:1565–1611

    Google Scholar 

  • Schønberg S (2000) Legitimate expectations in administrative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpston E (1990) European Community law and the doctrine of legitimate expectations: how legitimate, and for whom. NJILB 11:87–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas R (2000) Legitimate expectations and proportionality in administrative law. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2006) The general principles of EC law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • von Oettingen A (2010) Effet utile und individuelle Rechte im Recht der Europäischen Union. 18 Schriften zur Europäischen Integration und Internationalen Wirtschaftsordning. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakrzewski R (2005) Remedies reclassified. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Private Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Bjarte Thorson

Authors
  1. Bjarte Thorson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thorson, B. (2016). Sources of Rights. In: Individual Rights in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32770-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32771-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation