Adieu and Farewell to the Data Retention Directive

Anita PicAnita Davies

The European Union is all too often portrayed as a creature defined by over-regulation – be it the infamous “bendy banana” rules or the great chocolate debate. It is easy (and sometimes politically convenient) to forget that the EU and CJEU can serve to protect individuals from overt (and covert) state regulation. As of a CJEU decision this week to annul the Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC), it will be very difficult for the Home Secretary, Teresa May, to push through the Communications Data Bill (also known as the “Snooper’s Charter”).

The bill was abandoned in May 2013 following opposition from the Lib Dems, but has shown signs of resurfacing. The bill would give police and security services access, without a warrant, to details of all online communication in the UK – such as the time, duration, originator and recipient, and the location of the device from which it was made. The bill depends however, on operators being obliged to store customers’ details and records. The data retention directive obliged companies to retain data and information of citizens using electronic communications networks – but now that it has been annulled the responsibility of operators to retain data is far more ambiguous.

The CJEU decision resulted from proceedings taking place in Ireland and Austria – where challenges had been mounted regarding the legality of national legislative and administrative measures concerning the retention of data. The Court ruled on Wednesday that the purpose of the Data Retention Directive, i.e. ensuring that communications data was available in order to investigate and fight serious crime, was compatible with the European Rights framework. However, the Directive itself entailed a wide-ranging and particularly serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data (Articles 7 and 8 of the CFREU), without that interference being limited to what was strictly necessary.

The Court noted that the data being retained enabled:

“very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the private lives of the persons whose data has been retained, such as the habits of everyday life, permanent or temporary places of residence, daily or other movements, the activities carried out, the social relationships of those persons and the social environments frequented by them” [§27].

Given the potential conclusions the Court found that:

“The EU legislation in question must lay down clear and precise rules governing the scope and application of the measure in question and imposing minimum safeguards so that the persons whose data have been retained have sufficient guarantees to effectively protect their personal data against the risk of abuse and against any unlawful access and use of that data” [§54].

The Directive lacked such precise rules and appropriate safeguards.

In particular the Court objected to the fact that the Directive did not discriminate between individuals. The Directive covers all individuals, all means of electronic communication and all traffic data without any differentiation, limitation or exception being made in the light of the objective of fighting against serious crime. The Directive also fails (somewhat surprisingly given its purpose) to define the notion of “serious crime”. The Court found that the data retention period (6 to 24 months) was too generic and that the Directive did not require that the data be retained within the EU itself. Continue reading

Right-Hand, or Wrong-Hand, Drive? Market Access and Proportionality

Angus MacCulloch, Lancaster University Law School

On 20 March 2014 the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) handed down two separate, but connected, judgements in Case C-639/11 Commission v Poland and Case C-61/12 Commission v Lithuania. Both cases involve the Commission challenging the Member States’ refusal to register right-hand drive cars within their jurisdiction. Both MSs argued that their refusal to allow the registration of right-hand drive cars was a safety measure as the driver of a right-hand drive car has a field of vision considerably reduced when the traffic is on the right-hand side of the road. It is rather contrary to the usual UK political debate on EU migration, but this issue is essentially a problem caused when former UK residents move to Poland or Lithuania and attempt to register their right-hand drive cars in those States (AG [102]). The owners of right-hand drive vehicles would have to go through the expensive process of moving the vehicle controls to the left in order to properly register their vehicle in either MS. In the rest of this post references will be to Case C-639/11 unless specifically indicated.

The judgment concerns two separate issues. The first, the registration of new vehicles, is of less general interest and I shall deal with it very briefly. The second, the registration of vehicles previously registered in another MS, is of wider application and I shall deal with it more fully.

New Vehicles

The registration process for new vehicles in the EU is comprehensively governed by Type Approval Directives (Directive 70/311/EEC and Directive 2007/46/EC) which are designed to “replace the Member States’ approval systems with a Community approval procedure based on the principle of total harmonisation” (Dir 2007/46, Recital 2). The type approval procedure was amended when the UK and Ireland became members of the, then, Community to make no distinction between left and right-hand drive cars. Both the Directives are internal market measures, but ensure within them a high degree of road safety. Art 2a of Directive 70/311/EC requires MSs not to prohibit the registration of vehicles “on grounds relating to their steering equipment” if the vehicles satisfies the requirements of the Directive. It was therefore not surprising that as the EU harmonising measure had already taken into account the safety issues arising from the differences between the type approval of new left and right-hand drive vehicles it was not possible for an individual MS to require further pre-registration changes through moving the steering equipment from right to left [47].

Vehicles Previously Registered in other MSs

As the Directives only apply to approval of new vehicles they were not relevant to the registration of vehicles which had previously been registered in other MSs. That question was governed by the Treaty principles on the free movement of goods, namely Articles 34 and 36 TFEU. Both Poland and Lithuania argued that the use of a right-hand drive vehicle in situations where traffic circulated on the right hand side of the road presented a risk to road safety such as to necessitate the refusal of registration. The Polish Government argued that there was no indirect discrimination in the measure, as right-hand drive vehicles manufactured in Poland were equally effected. Both the Polish and Lithuanian Governments argued that even if the measure was a quantitative restrict on imports, in the terms of Art 34 TFEU, it was justified on the basis of the protection of road safety. The Commission argued that the measure was contrary to Art 34 TFEU, and that the refusal of registration was not suitable for attaining the road safety objective pursued, and the measure was disproportionate.

The most interesting aspect of the findings of the Court in these cases was not the eventual decision. It was not surprising that, given the EU harmonisation provisions in place, the CJEU was resistant to the MSs attempt to restrict the import of vehicles from other MSs. However, the way in which they approach the question is interesting in two regards. First the test the Court used to decide whether the national measures fell within Art 34 TFEU, and second, the issues it took into account in deciding the proportionality question. Continue reading

Case Comment: CD v ST and Z v A Government Department & Ors (C-167/12 and C-363/12)

Michèle Finck, University of Oxford

Human procreation is not longer what it used to be. While medical research has created a number of mechanisms that allow people to engage in sexual intimacy without a resulting pregnancy, it also allows those wishing to procreate but who are unable to do so biologically to have children. IVF and surrogacy in many ways challenge our conception of human procreation. Naturally, the law needs to adapt to these changes.  Surrogacy in particular however raises a number of value-laden questions, which complicates the law’s response to these medical avenues. It is thus not surprising that no homogenous position exists between Member States on this issue.

In the CD and Z cases, the CJEU had to pronounce itself on how to reconcile surrogacy with an existing legal framework on maternity leave that did not account for motherhood resulting from that mechanism. More precisely, it was faced with the question of whether a mother who did not give birth to her own child, born via a surrogate, has a right to maternity leave under EU law. Family law is not a EU competence. Maternity leave is, however, regulated by the Pregnant Workers Directive (PWD) and some aspects arising out of motherhood and employment are addressed by the Sex Discrimination Directive. In Mayr, the CJEU had already clarified that the Sex Discrimination Directive is applicable to workers undergoing IVF that have not yet been successful.

In CD and Z, the Grand Chamber established that, as a matter of EU law, only women who themselves give birth to the child can benefit from maternity leave. Two Advocates General, Wahl and Kokott, issued opinions and came to opposed conclusions. The Court followed Advocate General Wahl in its judgment. Applying Mayr, it found that the PWD only applies to women who are in fact pregnant. The Sex Discrimination Directive was found not to be applicable either as the commissioning mother of a surrogacy agreement would be in the same position as a commissioning father. Having found that the question fell outside of the ambit of EU law, the CJEU also found the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be inapplicable. In the Z judgment, the CJEU further clarified that the Framework Equality Directive and its provisions on disabilities do not apply to women unable to become or carry out a pregnancy as the directive only targets disabilities that render a worker’s involvement in professional life more burdensome, which is not the case for medical conditions that prevent women from getting pregnant or carrying out a pregnancy. Continue reading

Rights of residence of TCN family members within a Union citizen’s home state: Comment on Cases C-456/12 O and B and C-457/12 S and G, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 12 March 2014

photoCatherine Taroni

Context

Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely grants qualifying Union citizens rights of residence in Member States other than their own, and allows family members to derive rights of residence from the Union citizen.  As McCarthy showed, this does not apply within a Union citizen’s home state.  It is possible for family members to derive rights of residence from the Treaty within a Union citizen’s home state, and this is what the Court considered in C-456/12 O and B and C-457/12 S and G.

Continue reading

‘Exposing a Grave Injustice’: Montreal Exclusivity and the Rights of Disabled Passengers: Stott v Thomas Cook [2014] UKSC 15

Dr Jeremias Prassl

On March 5, 2014 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Stott v Thomas Cook (previewed for the UK Supreme Court blog last autumn here). The case had attracted significant interest domestically and internationally, with the claimant supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Secretary of State for Transport intervening on his behalf.

Facts

During a journey from Zante, Greece, to East Midlands Airport in the autumn of 2009, the claimant Mr Stott, paralysed and permanently dependent on a wheelchair, suffered from a breach of his rights under the EU’s Disability Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006, as implemented in the United Kingdom by the Civil Aviation (Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1895). The trial judge assessed compensation at £2,500 but saw himself unable to make such an award due to the exclusive application of the Montreal Convention of 1999 (‘MC’).

Thomas Cook had relied on that international convention’s uniform rules governing liability under the contract of carriage by air, suggesting that their exclusive scope of application was a well-established principle in domestic, European Union and international law and that passengers could therefore not seek redress under domestic law. Article 29 MC stipulates that

In the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo, any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention […]

The United Kingdom is a contracting party to the Montreal Convention, the provisions of which have also been incorporated into EU law by Regulation (EC) 889/2002. Giving the only substantive judgment for the Court of Appeal, Maurice Kay LJ had found in favour of the airlines on the basis of Article 29 MC:

The real injuries to [the claimants’] feelings […] were sustained at times when the Montreal Convention governed their situations. Its exclusivity both provided and limited their rights and remedies. Accordingly, their claims for compensation for injury to feelings could not succeed. [54]

Judgment

Judgment for the Supreme Court was given by Lord Toulson, with whom Lady Hale and Lords Neuberger, Reed and Hughes agreed. Following a summary of the facts and the relevant provisions in domestic and European Union law, his Lordship turned to a discussion of the Montreal Convention, ‘Article 29 [of which] is the rock on which Mr Stott’s claim for damages foundered’ [32].

Counsel for Mr Stott had suggested that the exclusivity question raised an important point of EU law and that the MC should not be applicable to the present case, which fell outside both its substantive and temporal scope. This could be illustrated by reference to joined Cases C‑581/10 and C‑629/10 Nelson and TUI Travel plc and Case C-344/04 ex parte IATA, where the CJEU had repeatedly found that the provisions of Regulation 261/2004 for compensation and assistance to passengers in case of delayed or cancelled flights were not incompatible with the MC, but rather a complementary regime of passenger protection. In rejecting this point, and the related request for a preliminary reference under Article 267 TFEU, Lord Toulson suggested that EU law as such was not engaged, or in any way manifestly clear, as the CJEU had held in ex parte IATA [at paragraph 42], that claims for damages on an individual basis would be subject to MC exclusivity, and Mr Stott’s claim was so founded.

Counsel for the Secretary of State for Transport, on the other hand, focussed on the temporal dimension of the claim, suggesting that the Regulations had been breached long before Mr and Mrs Stott’s embarkation. This argument, too, was rejected: on the facts, the actual injury had taken place only once aboard the aircraft, and also to avoid ‘encourag[ing] deft pleading in order to circumvent the purpose of the Convention’ [60]. Lord Toulson adopted the reasoning of Sotomayor CJ in King v American Airlines (see discussion below), and held that the quality of the cause of action was irrelevant: the Montreal Convention was designed comprehensively to deal with air carriers’ liability from the moment of embarkation until disembarkation. Continue reading

Destitute asylum seekers – what are member states’ obligations? Case Comment: Federaal Agentschap v Saciri (C-79/13)

Bianca Venkata

refugee

Photograph of a child asylum seeker in the Rixensart asylum seeker centre in Belgium

Facts

On 11 October 2010 the Saciri family applied for asylum in Belgium. The family consists of father Selver, mother Danijela and their three children, Danjel, Denis and Sanela.  At the same time as claiming asylum, the family applied for accommodation to the Belgian agency for asylum seeker reception (Fedasil). Fedasil informed the Saciri family that it did not have any available accommodation and referred it to obtain a financial allowance from the Belgian public centre for social welfare (OCMW). OCMW refused to provide the family with a financial allowance on the grounds that the family was not staying at Fedasil’s asylum reception centre. As a consequence, the family was denied both public asylum seeker accommodation and a financial allowance to rent in the private market.

The family commenced proceedings in the Leuven local labour court (Local Court). On 12 January 2011 the Local Court ordered Fedasil to provide the family with public accommodation. On 21 January 2011 Fedasil finally placed the family in public asylum seeker accommodation. By this time the family had spent more than three months, from the date of claiming asylum, without public accommodation or a sufficient financial allowance to rent privately. On 17 October 2011, the Local Court ordered Fedasil to pay the Saciri family EUR 2,961, representing three months of minimum guaranteed income. Fedasil appealed the judgment to the Brussels higher labour court (Higher Court).

Preliminary Reference

The Higher Labour Court referred three questions to the Court of Justice as preliminary references. The questions were:

  1. When a member state chooses to provide a financial allowance instead of accommodation is it bound by the requirements of articles 13 and 14 of Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 (Directive)? In particular, should the financial allowance be sufficient to allow an asylum seeker to provide their own accommodation at all times?
  2. From when does the financial allowance need to be paid?
  3. Does the member state have to ensure compliance with the Directive when its asylum accommodation is full and it refers asylum seekers to other public agencies?

The Law

The Directive lays down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. Recital 5 of the Directive stresses that full respect for human dignity as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter) should be ensured. Recital 7 states that the Directive should normally ensure asylum seekers a dignified standard of living and that comparable living conditions should be provided in member states.

Article 13 of the Directive requires member states to ensure:

  • that material reception conditions are available to applicants when they make their application for asylum (article 13(1)); and
  • a standard of living adequate for the health of applicants and capable of ensuring their subsistence. (article 13(2)).

Article 13(5) of the Directive states that:

“…where Member States provide material reception conditions in the form of financial allowances….the amount thereof shall be determined in accordance with the principles set out in this Article.”

Article 14 of the Directive imposes various conditions on member states when they provide accommodation to asylum seekers. This includes ensuring that minors are lodged with their parents (article 14(3)).

Belgium has transposed the Directive into its domestic law. Continue reading

Uncharted territory? The European Charter and Fair Trial Rights

Anita PicAnita Davies

The case of ZZ v SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 7 shows that, in certain circumstances, the European Charter may come to an individual’s rescue in terms of procedural protection even when the European Convention of Human Rights does not apply. While this news will no doubt be of concern to some sections of the media and legal establishment, ZZ is an interesting example of how domestic, Convention and Charter rights interlink.     ZZ is an individual with Algerian and French nationality. In 2006 the Secretary of State refused ZZ entry to the UK pursuant to regulation 19(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, on the basis that his exclusion was justified on grounds of public security. His appeal against that decision lay to the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (“SIAC”), which decided his case according to a closed material procedure and dismissed the appeal in September 2008.

Closed material procedures have been challenged before, for example in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3) [2009] UKHL 28, which concerned control orders. In that case it was held that the right to a fair hearing under Article 6 required a minimum amount of information to be supplied to an individual in order for them to know the case against them. But it was held by Strasbourg in Maaouia v France [2000] 33 EHRR 1037 that Article 6 does not apply to immigration proceedings, primarily because it is limited to the determination of “civil rights and obligations” or a “criminal charge”.

ZZ’s case was however unusual in that because he held dual nationality, the refusal to admit him into the United Kingdom restricted the rights of free movement and residence that he enjoyed as a citizen of the European Union by virtue of his French nationality. The essential question was whether in the SIAC proceedings he had sufficient disclosure of the case against him to comply with the procedural requirements of EU law, in particular Article 47, which reads very similarly to Article 6:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article ….”

Crucially, Article 47 is not limited to the determination of “civil rights and obligations” or a “criminal charge”.

An appeal against SIAC’s decision was heard by the Court of Appeal  in early 2011. The Court dismissed the domestic law grounds of appeal but decided to refer the question of EU law to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. The CJEU gave its judgment on that reference on 4 June 2013 (Case C-300/11). However, the CJEU’s decision was not entirely clear and led to a dispute as to its actual meaning. The Court Of Appeal deemed the CJEU’s judgment to be clear, namely that Article 47 requires a similar level of disclosure of the case against an individual as is required by Article 6.  Richards LJ said at [18]:

“[I]t seems to me that the resolution of the issue before us depends on a straightforward reading of the CJEU’s judgment. In my view that judgment lays down with reasonable clarity that the essence of the grounds on which the decision was based must always be disclosed to the person concerned. That is a minimum requirement which cannot yield to the demands of national security. Nor is there anything particularly surprising about such a result in the context of restrictions on the fundamental rights of free movement and residence of Union citizens under EU law.”  

ZZ therefore extends the procedural rights available to EU citizens in immigration proceedings and also fills in some of the gaps in Article 6, which has been subject to a prolific jurisprudence as concerns its application in terms of the definition of both “civil rights” and “criminal charge”. Article 47, due to its wider drafting, circumnavigates such difficulties and also applies beyond immigration proceedings, applying as it does to the violation of all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union. Article 47 thus opens up a wider territory of fair hearing rights for EU citizens. Continue reading

Does Germany need a political questions doctrine?

CormacCormac Mac Amhlaigh

The German Federal Constitutional Court’s (GFCC) recent decision on the (il)legality of the ECB’s bond-buying practices is the latest in what can only by now be described as a slew of cases from the Court since its 2009 Lisbon decision on questions which involve the German basic law but have an arguably disproportionate reverberation across Europe and particularly the European integration project. In fact, the OMT the decision itself, whereby the Court expressed doubts about the legality of the ECB’s bond-buying practices, but before making a definitive determination on the question, made a preliminary reference on the question to the CJEU, in a sense represents the making good on previous promises by the Court in Maastricht, Lisbon and Honeywell, where it threated to monitor the activities of the European institutions to ensure that they did not stray beyond the powers bestowed upon them in the treaties, and thereby vicariously break the German Constitution, (Maastricht and Lisbon) but would make a preliminary reference to the CJEU for its input into whether the activities of EU institutions are lawful before making a final determination on the point itself. (Honeywell)

The OMT decision has attracted much commentary and criticism in both the media and the blogosphere which I will not add to it here. Nor will I try to predict the future as to what Luxembourg’s response will be, nor Karlsruhe’s response to Luxembourg’s response (although it will be interesting to see what Luxembourg makes of a preliminary reference from a national Court which comes with a threat to ignore its opinion attached).  Rather, this latest case in the recent slew, and the occasion of the first preliminary reference from the GFCC in the fifty plus years of European integration, gives occasion, I think, to critically reflect upon the Court’s approach to politically sensitive issues involving the European integration process. 

To a student or teacher of British constitutional law, with its (however threadbare) doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, one never ceases to be amazed by the extent to which the GFCC gets its hands dirty by wading into the heart of German political life, adjudicating upon high-profile and sensitive political issues such as the conduct of German foreign policy and the management of security threats, to the point of second-guessing the activities of the executive and legislature.  This fearless attitude to the separation of powers has resulted in some remarkable decisions in the past (see Franck for an excellent overview), and some, quite frankly, dubious political theory on the part of the court which was on full display in its Lisbon decision.    However, what stands out is the fact that Court seems to unquestioningly assume the propriety of its activities and the complete absence of any doctrine or criteria to filter out particular controversies which may be judged too politically sensitive for the Court to make a ruling.  Courts in many (if not most) other jurisdictions, tend to side-step heavily political matters through the savvy use of admissibility requirements such as rules on locus standi or the development of judicially fashioned doctrines on ‘political questions’ or justiciability. Continue reading

An End to European Multilateralism: A Comment on the German Bundesverfassungsgericht’s OMT decision

Oliver Gerstenberg

When it comes to adjudicating the European sovereign debt crisis, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht emerges as a sharply divided court. Back in August 2012, Mario Draghi pledged to do “whatever it takes” to prevent a single currency break-up. His words were followed by the Outright Monetary Transactions Programme (OMT), allowing the ECB to buy unlimited government bonds of over-exposed eurozone countries. The so-called “magic” of the OMT was that it has worked without ever being activated—the statement of a credible commitment alone was sufficient to stabilize markets without the ECB ever having to buy a single bond so far and to stop sovereign bond spreads.

In its pronouncement of February 7, 2014, on whether the ECB’s sovereign bond-buying program is “ultra vires,” the 2. Senate of the BVG, with a majority of 6:2, has for the first time ever turned to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. But, appearances to the contrary, the deployment of the reference procedure is anything but an act of European-friendliness and judicial comity. The senate’s majority opinion uncompromisingly expressed its categoric view that essentially due to its unlimited nature the OMT programme indeed amounted a “structurally significant transgression of powers” under EU Treaty law: according to the six judges, “there are important reasons to assume that [the OMT-programme] exceeds the ECB’s monetary policy mandate and thus infringes the powers of the Member States, and that it violates the prohibition of monetary financing of the budget.” The consequences of these words are dramatic. For starters, those words may well set the stage for a constitutional conflict between the BVG and the CJEU, should the latter—as observers think is likely—see things differently and provide the OMT with a clean bill of health by declaring it an act of monetary policy. Perhaps even more fundamentally, rather than recant or eat its words, the BVG, upon a future constitutional complaint which the ruling self-consciously invites, has fully put itself on course of ordering Germany to leave the Eurozone entirely. In an ironic reversal of Draghi’s words, and in its own peculiar way, the BVG, too, seems bent on doing “whatever it takes.” Continue reading

A Spring in the Desert: the German ECJ Reference on the ECB Bond Purchases

Daniel Thym

Among domestic commentators, the initial response was amazement: the reference by the German Constitutional Court was perceived as a sensation and turning point. My reaction is more moderate. Judges in Karlsruhe recognise their limits and try to push the ECJ in their direction. This appears to be ground-breaking against the background of widespread media hype only. In principle, it is regular business. Judges in Karlsruhe boldly go where almost 2000 German courts, the regional Constitutional Court of Hesse and highest courts from other Member States had gone before.

By following their example, the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) recognises reality. Its position is not much different from Angela Merkel, the German Bundesbank and the Parliament. Without German involvement, euro rescue operations cannot succeed – and yet German state organs are not in a position to shape events single-handedly. In this respect, the reference for a preliminary ruling is nothing unusual and reflects the wider state of European affairs. It is quite telling that the domestic debate in Germany perceives as a sensation what is (or rather: ought to be) utterly self-evident.

Most importantly, the reference changes the legal setting. Instead of grounding the argument on the German constitution, the rules for monetary union in the EU Treaties take centre state (which the justices in Karlsruhe had ignored intentionally in earlier rulings on euro rescue operations). One may disagree how to interpret these provisions, but there is no reasonable doubt that the ECB has to comply with the prescriptions in the EU Treaties. Detailed rules in Articles 119-135 TFEU and related protocols are the appropriate standard for ECB action, not the so-called eternity clause of the German constitution, the Grundgesetz, upon which the FCC had relied hitherto.

This change of legal context has not been paid adequate attention by Justice Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff in her otherwise excellent dissenting opinion, which may soon become a must-read for students of constitutional law on the limits of judicial review (the FCC has promised to publish an English translation). She is right to criticise the majority for having embarked upon a tour of the desert, which was bound to fail from the beginning. Contrary to her suggestion, there is a spring in the desert, which justices may head for – although they refused to see it until last week: the ECB must comply with the rules of the EU Treaties and it is the responsibility of the ECJ to guarantee that they are respected. Judges in Karlsruhe should be applauded for having recognised this. Continue reading