The CJEU’s Headscarves cases: analysis of the contrasting AG opinions

Darryl HutcheonDarryl Hutcheon

Conflicts between the religious practices of workers and the ‘neutrality’ policies of their employers have repeatedly come before the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) and domestic courts in the UK. They now arise for the first time before the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in two cases: C-188/15 Bougnaoui v Micropole SA and C-157/15 Achbita v G4S Secure Solutions NV80. This note analyses the opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Bougnaoui handed down on 13 July 2016; contrasts that opinion with the earlier opinion[1] of AG Kokott in Achbita; and considers what these decisions tell us about the future trajectory of EU (and domestic) discrimination law.

Facts in both cases

Ms Bougnaoui and Ms Achbita are Muslim women who were employed in customer-facing roles by private sector employers. Both wore headscarves but wore nothing which covered their faces. Ms Bougnaoui was told that her headscarf had ‘embarrassed’ the employees of a company client she had visited; she was dismissed when she refused to agree not to wear a headscarf on future visits to that client. Ms Achbita had worked for her employer for some time before she started to wear a headscarf; she was then dismissed on the basis that her new practice breached a strict company ‘neutrality’ policy.

AG Sharpston’s opinion in Bougnaoui

Several aspects of AG Sharpston’s opinion are worthy of comment.

First, she rejected the suggestion that EU law on religious discrimination ought precisely to reflect the ECtHR’s article 9 (freedom of religion) jurisprudence, in effect by allowing a human rights justification/proportionality defence to direct discrimination claims ([58] – [67]). AG Sharpston maintained that the Framework Directive 2000/78 (“the Directive”) set down a clear distinction: indirect discrimination can be defended by reference to proportionality, but direct discrimination admits of (much) narrower exceptions.[2] Her position stands in contrast to the view expressed by some senior judges in the UK that the lack of a general justification defence to direct discrimination is a “defect” in the law: see e.g. R (E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15 at [9].

Second, AG Sharpston concluded that the decision to dismiss Ms Bougnaoui constituted direct, and not just indirect, discrimination ([83] – [89]). “Religion” for these purposes included manifestations of religion like wearing a headscarf. The judgment does not directly engage with the question of how courts should identify whether a particular act constitutes a “manifestation of religion”, but the case-law of the ECtHR on that subject will doubtlessly be persuasive. The recognition that religion is not just a status but an identity partly constituted by acts is intuitively attractive and compares favourably to the sometimes strained efforts of British judges to dissociate “religion” from acts which are obviously part and parcel of a person’s religion.[3] It leaves open the interesting question of whether EU law will permit employers to sanction employees whose religiously-motivated behaviour impacts negatively on other employees or on their work (as in the well-known “evangelising at work” cases). English courts have addressed this situation by distinguishing action taken because of religion/religious manifestations and action taken because of “the way in which (a worker) manifested or shared it”.[4] AG Sharpston’s opinion can probably be reconciled with that approach.

Third, AG Sharpston concluded that there was no basis to conclude that article 4(1) of the Directive (the genuine occupational requirement defence to direct discrimination claims) applied on the facts ([90] – [102]). It was decisive that Ms Bougnaoui remained perfectly able to perform her professional duties. Notably, AG Sharpston found it “hard to envisage” any application of the article 4(1) defence in religious discrimination claims, other than on health and safety grounds ([99]). She also gave a narrow reading to article 2(5) of the Directive (pursuant to which the Directive is subject to national measures which are necessary in pursuit of various public policy objectives), suggesting it could not be relied on by employers citing business reasons ([104] – [105]).

Fourth, AG Sharpston remarked on the application of the principles of indirect discrimination (in case the Court concluded that her characterisation of the claim as direct discrimination was mistaken). While an employer’s business reasons could constitute a legitimate aim, the question of proportionality was more complex ([134]). These kinds of issues could ordinarily be resolved by discussion between employer and employee; but ultimately, where an employer stood to lose out because of the prejudiced attitudes of its customers, “the business interest in generating maximum profit should… give way to the right of the individual employee to manifest his religious convictions” ([133]).

Continue reading

Meanwhile, in Germany…the OMT ruling of the German Constitutional Court

BVerfGProf Peter Lindseth

This post originally appeared in virtually the same form on the europaeus blog.  Reproduced with kind permission.

With the EU referendum taking place today, it will be easy to overlook the OMT judgment from the German Federal Constitutional Court two days ago (English press release here, full German judgment here).  The conventional wisdom is that the decision is the usual “yes, but…” effort.  There’s some element of truth in that, but it also misses some important dimensions of ruling that will no doubt occupy commentators on Germany’s legal relationship with the EU for some time.  I’m still absorbing the judgment and also awaiting an English translation.  But in the interim, I thought I’d pass on my tweets from yesterday that tried to identify several key paragraphs worthy of deeper analysis. Continue reading

Is the right to vote ‘governed’ by EU Law?

Dr Iyiola Solanke

Voting is a civil right, guaranteed by international instruments for the protection of human rights as well as in primary EU law. Article 10 TEU sets out that elections are central to the democratic life of the Union; Under Article 14 (3) TEU MEPs are to be elected in free and secret ballots for a term of 5 years; under Article 20 TEU, EU citizens enjoy the right to vote and stand in EP elections. This is repeated in Article 39 CFR. In addition, Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, protects the ‘free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’.  Given this, is the deprivation of the right to vote under national law compatible with EU law?

The Facts

Mr Delvigne was sentenced in 1988 to 12 years in prison for murder – under the French Criminal Code of 1810 this sentence also attracted loss of the right to vote. In 1992, the Code was updated to enable anybody subjected to deprivation of civil rights to apply for their reinstatement, either wholly or in part. According to French electoral law, any person so deprived of the right to vote was not to be registered on the electoral roll for the period set out in the judgment. Mr Delvigne lost his right to vote not only in national but also in European Parliament elections. He argued that this was a breach of the principle of equality set out in Article 39 CFR – French law stripped him of his rights as a Union citizen. Being unsure as to the answer, the national court referred two questions to the CJ.

A preliminary question in this request for a preliminary ruling was whether the CJ had jurisdiction under Article 51 (1) CFR – was French electoral law implementing EU law? France, Spain and the UK argued that there was no connection thus no CJ jurisdiction. However, Germany, the EP and the Commission disagreed: by adopting national provisions on the right to vote in elections to the EP, France was implementing its obligation under Article 14 (3) TEU. The AG and the Grand Chamber agreed – by ‘performing a specific obligation derived from EU law’ [AG,31] to ‘ensure that the election of Members of the European Parliament is by direct universal suffrage and free and secret’ [CJ, 32] France was implementing Union law.

However, the Grand Chamber narrowed its enquiry to Article 39(2) – it held that as Delvigne was a French citizen seeking the right to vote in France, Article 39(1) CFR –  an expression in the Charter of Article 20(2)(b) TFEU – did not apply. Yet as an expression of Article 14 (3) TEU, the CJ was

‘… clear that the deprivation of the right to vote to which Mr Delvigne is subject …represents a limitation of the exercise of the right guaranteed in Article 39(2) of the Charter’ [45]

Although Mr Delvigne won in relation to this principle, he lost upon its application – the Grand Chamber found that the limitation arising from the French Criminal Code respected the ‘essence’ of the right to vote in the Charter, was proportionate and necessary to meet genuine objectives of general interest. The national rule therefore was not precluded by Article 39(2) of the CFR. Continue reading

Si.mobil v European Commission (T-201/11) – ‎Undermining the Effectiveness of EU Competition law?

si.mobilPablo Figueroa and Catherine Derenne[1]

“”That’s very important,” the King said, turning to the jury.  They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted:  “Unimportant, your Majesty means, of course,” he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.

“Unimportant, of course, I meant,” the King hastily said, and went on himself in an undertone, “important—unimportant—unimportant—important—” as if he were trying which word sounded best.”

(L. Carroll:  “Alice in Wonderland”)

According to the Automec case-law (paras. 73 ff), the European Commission has discretion as to how it deals with complaints.  That said, the Court of Justice of the European Union has clearly stated that the Commission’s discretion when rejecting complaints is not “unlimited” (Ufex and Others v. Commission, para. 89).  Regulation 1/2003 awarded to the Commission two additional grounds under which to dismiss cases.  Pursuant to Article 13, the Commission can dispose of complaints where “one authority is dealing with the case” (13(1)) or where a complaint “has already been dealt with by another competition authority” (13(2)).

In late 2014, the General Court has issued a Ruling in the context of the Si.mobil case interpreting the first of these provisions in a way which further enhances the Commission’s “not unlimited” discretion when rejecting complaints (the “Si.mobil Ruling”).  More specifically, the General Court endorsed the Commission’s deference to the National Competition Authorities of the EU Member States (the “NCA”s).  In our view, in doing so, the General Court allowed the Commission to abdicate from its constitutional Role of Guardian of the Treaties and to disregard the effectiveness of the Competition provisions in those Treaties.

Moreover, the Si.mobil Ruling was issued in the context of a broader series of Rulings which further enhance the Commission’s discretion when rejecting complaints (See Alexiadis, P. and Figueroa, P., “Commission Discretion Unchained”, Competition Law Insight, 17 March 2015).  Indeed, the Si.mobil Ruling becomes particularly surprising in the light of a series of unambiguous and repeated statements of the Commission in relation to the institutional failures of certain NCAs.  Note for example the Speech of former Vice-President Almunia in May 2014 where he expressed concerns in relation to the lack of resources and independence of certain NCAs.

The Si.mobil Ruling hinged on the interpretation of Article 13(1) Regulation 1/2003, according to which, “[t]he Commission may […] reject a complaint on the ground that a competition authority of a Member State is dealing with the case”.

On 14 August 2009, Si.mobil telekomunikacijske storitve d.d. filed a complaint before the Commission against Telekom Slovenije d.d. (“TS”), the incumbent mobile operator in Slovenia, for an alleged abuse of TS’ dominant position consisting, inter alia, in margin squeezes and predatory pricing.  On 24 January 2011, the Commission rejected the complaint mainly on the grounds that the Slovenian NCA (the “UVK”) was already dealing with the case.

The Commission’s case rested on the proposition that Article 13 of Regulation 1/2003 should be interpreted in such a manner that the mere fact that an NCA claims to be dealing with a case is sufficient, in and of itself, to enable the Commission not to take the case (Commission Decision Si.mobil / Mobitel, Section 2(1)).  Under the Commission’s interpretation, even in scenarios with an effect on trade between Member States, and thereby meriting the application of the EU Competition rules, as long as such NCA claims to deal with, for example a margin squeeze case, which tends to be resource-intensive to investigate, the Commission is obliged to relinquish jurisdiction.

However, such a proposition involves a dramatic re-assessment of the Commission’s role as regards the exercise of its jurisdiction in relation to subject-matter which falls within the exclusive competence of the Union, and thus has far-reaching implications for the Community’s legal order.  By de facto completely disregarding the general legal principle of “effectiveness” from its decision to assert jurisdiction to apply European law, the Commission undermines the very foundations of the Treaties whose application is entrusted to ensure pursuant to Article 17 of the Treaty on the European Union (the “TEU”). Continue reading

The CJEU’s Response to the German Constitutional Court in ‘Gauweiler’

juropean-justiceProf Herwig Hofmann

This post originally appeared on the europaeus site and is re-produced here with permission.

Do exceptional situations make exceptionally good or exceptionally bad law? This is an old question often asked anew – especially in the context of the post-2008 economic crises travails of the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The legal disputes which resulted from differing opinions about how to solve the crises and also how, incidentally, to improve the EMU’s governance have reached the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The most prominent case to date is the so-called Gauweiler case, a preliminary reference procedure initiated by the German Constitutional Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG). I discuss this case in more fully argued working paper available on SSRN, ‘Gauweiler and OMT: Lessons for EU Public Law and the European Economic and Monetary Union‘.

Gauweiler concerns the legality of the decision of the Governing Board of the European Central Bank (ECB) of September 2012 on so called ‘Outright Monetary Transactions’ (OMT). This case is significant for legal integration in the EU since, although it is the first instance in which the German BVerfG has ever taken advantage of the preliminary reference procedure (Article 267 TFEU), the reference by the BVerfG was formulated in very terse words. Essentially, the reference asks for clarification about the legality of the ECB’s OMT decision. But that reference is not formulated in terms of a dialogue between Courts, each respecting the other’s distinctive powers. Instead, the BVerfG explains why it considers the ECB’s decision to be ultra vires of its mandate and asks the CJEU essentially to confirm this interpretation warning about potential consequences in its assessment of the ‘constitutional identity’ of the Federal Republic of Germany. Inherent in the reference is a thinly veiled threat not to accept the exclusive competence of the CJEU to review the legality of EU law and, instead, to unilaterally hold an act of an EU institution to be invalid within a Member State of the EU. The BVerfG reinforced its sceptical position of the primacy of EU law over the law of Member States by recalling in its decision for preliminary reference its case-law concerning the limits it perceives are set for the Federal Republic of Germany’s integration in the European Union. In its decision, it refers to and further interprets the scope of its own case-law making reference inter alia to its judgments concerning the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Lisbon and in Honeywell, as precedent for its questions to the CJEU. Continue reading

Case comment: the UK Supreme Court’s Rotherham judgment

Brown_K_146174_rtChristopher Brown

(This post originally appeared on the UK Supreme Court blog.)

On 25 February 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its judgments in R (Rotherham Metropolitan BC and Ors) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 6. The subject-matter was the allocation of European Structural Funds. Hardly a topic to get the pulse racing, you might think, but the judgments in fact contain important dicta, and differences of view, as to the role of the courts in reviewing decisions concerning one of the core functions of the State, namely the (re-)distribution of money.

Continue reading

Spain v Parliament & Council (C-146/13) – a giant step towards (dis)integration of the European patent system

Aurora Plomer

The green light for the introduction of a European unitary patent and a centralized patent court (UPC) was finally given by the CJEU in Spain v Parliament and Council (Case-146-3). This marks the end of longstanding but frustrated  efforts by the European Union to introduce a uniform patent system in Europe. Like its forerunners, the aim of the latest initiative in the form of the EU ‘patent package’,  is to create the legal conditions for a more secure, less complex  and less costly system for industry and investors to foster scientific and technological advances in the Union.  But whilst driven by the European Union,   the ‘patent package’   is a   mix of EU Regulations and an international Treaty  signed by twenty five out of the existing twenty eight Member States. The  ‘unitary patent’  or European patent with uniform effect (EPUE) across the twenty five signatories, has been created by means of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (OJ 2012 L 361, p. 1).  By contrast,  the centralized  ‘unified patent court’ (UPC),  with exclusive jurisdiction to enforce and revoke the EPUE,  is the product of an international treaty (the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, signed at Brussels on 19 February 2013 (OJ 2013 C 175, p. 1.)  The  legal architecture of the patent package  is therefore complex  and raises important constitutional questions regarding the legal basis of the patent package under EU law, the delegation of powers to the European Patent Organization and the principles of autonomy and uniform application of EU law. These questions were raised by Spain in an application for annulment of the legal instruments creating unitary patent protection. The Grand Chamber’s decision of 5 May 2015, rejecting Spain’s application,  has removed the last legal objection to the implementation of the ‘patent package’.  Spain raised seven pleas, all rejected by the court, in a laconic judgment which leaves many questions open. Some of the most salient issues left open by the judgment are discussed below.

By way of background to the Court’s ruling, it is important to note that patents have historically been territorial in nature so their enforcement and validity is determined by national laws (Article 3 TRIPS).  Since the adoption of the European Patent Convention (EPC) in 1973, applicants have been able to obtain a European-wide patent granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) covering any designated Member State of the European Patent Convention (currently thirty eight). The EPC preserves the principle of territoriality, so the legal effect of a European Patent granted by the EPO is the same as if the patent had been granted by the national patent office of a Member State. The grant of a European Patent thus results in a ‘bundle’ of national patents whose validity and revocation post-grant stands to be determined under the national laws of each designated Member State. A large scale study of  9,000 patent suits from seven of the largest countries in the European Union during 2000-2010 shows that judicial outcomes of revocation and infringement proceedings post-grant diverge radically across the different countries and types of patented technologies in Europe, making for a complex, uncertain and costly legal environment.  In this light,  the creation of a centralized judicial system  with exclusive jurisdiction on enforcement  of the unitary patent (UPC) has undoubtedly, in theory, many attractions from an applicant’s perspective.  Whether the legal creature created by the EU will meet applicants expectations is less clear.

Under the patent package,  applications for a unitary patent will be processed and administered by the EPO (Article 9 of the Regulation) under the rules and procedures of the EPC (Article 2(a) of the Regulation). Once granted, the European patent with uniform effect (EPUE) shall have unitary effect amongst the participating Member States (Article 2(b)). Of the seven pleas raised by Spain and dismissed by the Court, three stand out.

Spain argued that the contested regulation should be annulled as contrary to the rule of law  in Article 2 TEU because the administrative procedure for the grant of the unitary patent has been delegated to  the EPO (under Article 142 of the EPC)  but the decisions of the EPO boards are not subject to any form of judicial review to ensure the correct and uniform application of EU law and the protection of fundamental rights. The Court’s dismissal of Spain’s argument simply reiterates AG Bot’s technical answer (18th November 2014) that the contested regulation in no way delimits the condition for the grant of European patents which are exclusively governed by the EPC and not EU law. Yet, the Court’s reasoning, whilst formally correct,  represents the EPO’s intervention as an ‘accessory’ administrative act of registering a European patent granted under EPC rules as a European Patent with Unitary Effect.   In so doing, the answer evades the critical point raised by Spain that the decisions of the  EPO boards,  at the grant stage of the European patent and its ‘accessory’ registration as a EPUE – are not subject to judicial scrutiny under EU law or indeed any other form of judicial scrutiny.  Neither is the point of purely academic interest as underscored by the case  Virgin Atlantic Airway Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46. As the result of an administrative error by the  EPO examiners, the applicant was exposed to a claim worth £49 million  in infringement proceedings in the UK. The UK Court held that the error could not be rectified at the post-grant stage unless the EPO corrected the error. The applicant’s request to the EPO to correct the error was originally refused prompting further appeals at the EPO and in the UK courts highlighting the shortcomings of the EPO tribunal system (the case has been extensively discussed in IP blogs; for example IP Copy). By contrast, in legal proceedings in national courts or administrative bodies where EU law is engaged, an applicant in similar circumstances could invoke Article 41 of the EU Charter. Not so with the EPUE and the EPO boards.  The recent dismissal of one of the EPO officials has further fuelled concerns about  the independence and fairness of the EPO tribunals, prompting an unprecedented intervention by Sir Robin Jacob (see letter and EPO response). Also, for a discussion of parallel proceedings in German Courts Dr. Stjerna’s article on the topic is available in PDF here. Continue reading

Should Damages in Public Procurement Hinge on Disappointed Bidders’ Commercial Interests? A Comment on Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

ASGDr Albert Sanchez Graells, School of Law, University of Leicester

In its recent Judgment of 23 January 2015 in Energy Solutions EU Ltd v Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2015] EWHC 73 (TCC), the High Court ruled on a preliminary issue in a public procurement dispute and held that the review court has no discretion (not) to grant damages for losses resulting from a breach of the public procurement rules. In my view, the Energy Solutions v NDA Judgment should be criticised at least for two reasons: firstly, because it misinterprets the EU rules on public procurement remedies and their link with the general principle of State liability for breaches of EU law; and secondly, because it creates an analytical framework based on the commercial decisions of disappointed bidders that would result in excessive (strategic) claims for damages. Moreover, the Energy Solutions v NDA Judgment sheds light on an important shortcoming of the system of public procurement remedies that is perpetuated under the recently adopted Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/102). This comment addresses these issues in turn.


The dispute arises after Energy Solutions (as part of a bidding consortium, but that is not relevant for our purposes) was not chosen as the winning bidder in a tender for a nuclear waste management contract with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). After expressing its disagreement with the award decision and seeking additional information in the ensuing debriefing process, Energy Solutions eventually challenged the tender procedure within the 30-day limit applicable under reg.47D(2) of the applicable Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/5, as amended, primarily by SI2009/2992). By the time the challenge was effected, NDA had already entered into a contract with the winning bidder. Energy Solutions sought compensation for the damages it alleged to have suffered as a result of the improper conduct of the tender procedure.

NDA tried to bar the damages action by arguing that a failure to challenge the award decision within the 10-day standstill period provided for under reg.32(3) Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (which could have prevented it from entering into the contract) broke the causal link between any breach of the applicable procurement rules and the ensuing damages (which, If any, would then derive from the tardiness of the challenge). NDA basically claimed that having foregone the possibility to prevent the award of the contract to another tenderer by activating the suspension foreseen in reg. 47G Public Contracts Regulations 2006, Energy Solutions had also lost the possibility to seek damages compensation. In support of that position, NDA submitted that, under reg.47J(2)(c) Public Contracts Regulations 2006, the review court retained discretion (not) to award damages resulting from a breach of public procurement rules in circumstances such as those in the case (ie the lost opportunity of litigating within the standstill period).

The High Court ruled against NDA on both points. Edwards-Stuart J found no basis for the

submission that any award of damages is dependent on the level of gravity of the breach, or any other such factor, and thus dependent on an exercise of judicial “discretion” or judgment, or whether, absent any failure to mitigate its loss, having proved a breach of the [public procurement rules] a claimant is entitled to anything other than damages that should be assessed by reference to ordinary principles. It may well be that the claimant’s conduct will have been such that the court will be very reluctant to make any assumptions in its favour in relation to damages, but that is simply an aspect of the usual approach of the court to the assessment of damages (para 86).

As mentioned above, this finding is open to criticism, both for its inconsistency with EU law and because it creates an analytical framework that may result in excessive claims for damages. Each of these issues is addressed in turn. The problem derived from the diverging duration of the standstill period and the time limit for the challenge of award decisions is discussed last, as it also affects the brand new Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Continue reading

Sanneh and Others – access to welfare for Zambrano carers


Dr Iyiola Solanke

If citizenship is the fundamental status for EU citizens, what is its substance for child citizens who are too young to enjoy the rights set out in Articles 21-23 TEU to work, travel, vote or petition the EP? What does the principle in EU law of ‘genuine enjoyment of the substance of citizenship’ mean if you are a child? And what are the implications for your parent or parents? These are central questions for a specific group of children now growing up across the EU – those who themselves hold EU citizenship but their parents do not. As stated in the Zambrano case,  the parents of such ‘Zambrano Minors’ derive a right of residence in the EU so that the child is not deprived of the genuine substance of Union citizenship. Although the Court of Justice has subsequently considered when this genuine enjoyment is impinged (Macarthy, Dereci, O & O) it has not made any remarks on the substance of citizenship rights for the children. It may be necessary for it to do so to prevent these children from being consigned to lives of poverty by national interpretation of its principle.

The Court of Appeal has delivered a decision concerning access by the parents of Zambrano Minors to social assistance. The parents challenged the Regulations adopted by the Coalition Government to incorporate the Zambrano principle into national law. Three Regulations were designed to specifically exclude these parents from rights to social assistance that they would otherwise have as lawfully resident persons. In line with its policy to make Britain hostile to immigrants, the Government decided that these parents should be in the same position as those who do not have a lawful right to reside. The ‘Amendment Regulations’ therefore exclude all ‘Zambrano Parents – those in work and those out of work – from income-related benefits including income support, jobseekers allowance, employment allowance, pension credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, child benefit and child tax credit. The Home Office justifies this policy as a measure to prevent and deter ‘benefit tourism’ but the parents argued that this policy was a faulty application of the Zambrano principle and discriminatory under EU law. It was argued that a proper application of the principle called for them to be in the same position as other EU nationals.

The Justices agreed with the Home Office. Drawing upon the ‘effective citizenship principle’, they held that

  1. Rights derived from an EU citizen [3] are not EU rights [95]. Thus although ‘their status is derived from the EU citizenship rights of the child as interpreted by the CJEU’ ‘EU law has no competence in the level of social assistance to be paid to the carer’. This is ‘exclusively governed by national law’ [27];
  2. ‘Zambrano carers’ derive their right to reside from Article 20 TFEU and therefore fall outside the EU cross-border social benefits legislative scheme (the ‘EU CBSBL scheme’) set out in the Citizenship Directive, the Long Term residence Directive and the Family reunion Directive [42];
  3. ‘Genuine enjoyment’ does not ‘require the State to guarantee any particular quality of life’ [32 & 171] – a ‘Zambrano carer’ is protected from compulsion to leave but this does not provide as a corollary a right for parent and child to live free from want and poverty. Zambrano carers are not to be left ‘destitute’ but member states remain free to determine access to benefits where individual situations fall outside of the scope of EU Directives [83];
  4. The proportionality principle is irrelevant because the question is beyond the scope of EU law;
  5. The EU principle of non-discrimination in EU law and the ECHR is inapplicable.

Continue reading

A criticism of the CJEU’s ruling that allowing London taxis to use bus lanes while prohibiting private hire vehicles from doing so does not appear to involve State aid (Eventech, C-518/13)

Dr Albert Sanchez Graells, School of Law, University of Leicester

In its judgment of 14 January 2015 in Eventech (C-518/13, EU:C:2015:9), the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) ruled on the preliminary question referred by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) in the Addison Lee “taxis in bus lanes” case [as part of the challenge of the High Court’s decision in Eventech Ltd (R on the application of) v Parking Adjudicator (2012) [2012] EWHC 1903 (Admin)]. The CJEU decided that allowing London taxis (black cabs) to use bus lanes while prohibiting private hire vehicles (PHVs) from doing so does not appear to involve State aid. While the Eventech judgment leaves a minimum scope for the Court of Appeals to find differently in view of the specific facts of the case and the parts of the file not referred to the CJEU, this is most likely the end of the dispute.

The decision comes at a time when the regulation of the taxi sector is under significant pressure due to the political and economic waves that sharing economy initiatives (such as Uber) create – or, in the words of AG Wahl in the Eventech Opinion, “taxis and PHVs are engaged in fierce competition with each other across Europe, and London is not the only city where conflicts have arisen” (EU:C:2014:2239, para 2). This is a sector where competition rules have always been difficult to enforce due to the heavy regulation to which it is subjected (OECD, Competition Roundtable on ‘Taxi Services: Competition and Regulation’, 2007). Some claim that it is a sector ripe for proper deregulation and liberalisation, while others claim the opposite [for recent discussion, see L Eskenazi, ‘The French Taxi Case: Where Competition Meets—and Overrides—Regulation’ (2014) Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, and, The Taxi Market in Ireland: To Regulate or Deregulate? (2014)]. The discussion on the State aid implications of certain privileges derived from such regulation in crisis, and particularly the privileged use of bus lanes, added one layer of complication that the CJEU seems to have been keen on taking off the table.

The legal dispute in front of the CJEU can be condensed to opposing views on whether allowing black cabs to use bus lanes while prohibiting PHVs from doing so infringed the prohibition in Article 107(1) TFEU. It can be further narrowed down to the two key issues of whether this policy involves a commitment of State resources and whether it confers on taxis a selective economic advantage. Both elements need to be present for the prohibition of Article 107(1) TFEU to apply. The CJEU found in the negative on both aspects and determined that the practice of permitting, “in order to establish a safe and efficient transport system, black cabs to use bus lanes on public roads during the hours when the traffic restrictions relating to those lanes are operational, while prohibiting minicabs from using those lanes, except in order to pick up and set down passengers who have pre-booked such vehicles, does not appear, though it is for the referring court to determine, to be such as to involve a commitment of State resources or to confer on black cabs a selective economic advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU” (C-518/13, para 63).

In my view, the Eventech judgment is criticisable in both areas. It fails to address the issues of economic advantage and selectivity in a functional manner—not least because the analysis of the selectivity of the measure ultimately relies on an assessment of ‘equality’ or ‘comparability’ of the legal position of black cabs vis-à-vis PHVs that falls into a logic trap derived from the pre-existing regulation of black cabs. Moreover, the analysis of the element of transfer of State resources is very counterintuitive and seems to contradict both economic theory (particularly as the use of public goods is concerned) and the case law on access to essential facilities under private ownership.

The finding that State resources are not involved is partial and flawed

Following the Opinion of AG Wahl, the CJEU engages in a rather counterintuitive approach to the issue of the transfer of State resources, which focusses on whether the State is forfeiting revenue by not charging black cabs for access to the bus lanes or by not imposing fines on them when they use the bus lanes, as it does with PHVs (judgment, paras 36-46). This approach comes from the AG Opinion, where he had decided to assess the question from the perspective of the regulatory powers of the Member State and fundamentally concluded that, in the exercise of those regulatory powers, there is no obligation to impose a charge for access to public infrastructure (Opinion, paras 24-35). Continue reading