联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981

1Hinterland Co is a company of Ghekland, a (fictional) EU Member State, that specialises in artisan kitchenware appliances. It recently developed a new state- of-the art range of kitchenware operated by sensors and speech recognition and wants to prioritise these for export to other EU Member States. It encounters several problems in trying to export the products.

(a)The government of Frigland, a (fictional) EU Member State, introduced legislation requiring importers of kitchenware appliances to pay a compliance fee of 2% of the value of the goods to ensure that these appliances comply with Frigland’s ethical certification standards regarding kitchenware appliances operated by sensors and speech recognition. The ethical certification standards aim to protect consumers’ privacy and data protection rights. The Frigland customs authorities oversee the ethical certification process, and the fee goes towards paying for the set up and administration costs of the process. The legislation also requires importers to pay a 7% import tax to ensure the nascent Frigland manufacturing sector for artificial intelligence-enabled appliances can sustain itself through the economic recession expected to affect the country.

(b)Bekland, a (fictional) EU Member State, does not have a domestic manufacturing industry for artificial intelligence-enabled kitchenware appliances but intends to develop one through strategic investment in know-how and infrastructure. In order to ensure that consumers fully understand that these products operate through artificial intelligence and to protect the environment, Bekland requires that all artificial intelligence-enabled kitchenware appliances must be clearly labelled with specified consumer information and a warning that they consume more electricity than standard kitchenware appliances. There is no EU-wide harmonisation measure concerning artificial intelligence-enabled kitchenware appliances.

(c)Under Bekland law, retail outlets that stock Hinterland Co’s kitchenware appliances are required to provide technical assistance on functionality and ethical compliance with privacy and data protection rights before selling any appliance. Due to concerns about the impact of artificial intelligence-enabled kitchenware appliances on personal privacy and the potential for nefarious surveillance and monitoring of personal behaviour, Bekland law also requires that all artificial intelligence-enabled kitchenware appliances are only used in domestic households and not in commercial, business or employment settings. Importers of artificial intelligence-enabled kitchenware appliances are required to have a licence to import the appliances and there are a limited number of licences available for each of the three regions of Bekland. The Bekland government states that this is to ensure the appliances are only sold to households after receiving technical assistance from the retail outlet.

Advise Hinterland Co as to the legality of each of these national measures under EU law.

2On 1 April 2022 the European Parliament and the Council of the EU adopted a (fictional) EU Regulation, 22/2022/EU, to harmonise rules on online gambling. The legal basis for the Regulation is Article 114 TFEU. The Regulation is effective in the laws of the EU Member States from 1 May 2022. It states that legislative action at EU-level is required to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market because of different rules in the Member States. Some Member States have banned online gambling, some have restricted it, and others impose no restrictions. It further states that the Regulation is motivated by the need to prevent people, especially young people, from becoming addicted to gambling. Evidence suggests that online gambling is highly addictive, and because it is so easily accessible, many young people are building up huge personal debts because of their addiction.

The Regulation introduces a minimum age for online gambling of 21 years and requires providers to issue a detailed warning to consumers about the dangers of addiction and affordability as part of the online process of placing a bet or participating in a gambling game. Each Member State must ensure that there are “effective remedies” for consumers in the event of a violation of their rights. Not all Member States and businesses agree with the new rules.

(a)Pulakia, a (fictional) EU Member State, voted against the Regulation at the Council meeting. Pulakia is concerned about the Regulation’s potentially negative effect on its economy as it has attracted many online gambling companies who appreciate its low tax, low regulation business environment. Pulakia has no domestic laws on online gambling for those aged 15 years and over but has a system of self-regulation which it regards as effective for the purpose of consumer protection. Pulakia believes that the Regulation will make such business moves less attractive.

Pulakia seeks to have the Regulation annulled by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on the following grounds:

(i)lack of competence, arguing that the Regulation is not compatible with the objectives of the internal market; and
(ii)infringement of the principle of subsidiarity, because consumers are sufficiently protected by national systems of self-regulation in the Member States.

In the context of EU law, advise Pulakia of the substantive and procedural matters arising from its intended legal action.

(Question continued on next page)

LAWW3111-E1

(b)Mega Betting (MB) is a online gambling business based in Pulakia. It established itself in Pulakia because of that country’s largely unregulated gambling market and low minimum age for gambling. It advertises mainly via social media and specialises in gambling on celebrity competitions, music awards and sports that attract a high proportion of participants under the age of 21. It imposes a maximum bet of 100 Euros. MB anticipates that the new rules will eliminate its profit margins and force it out of business. It has continued to make its services in Pulakia available to those aged 15-21 after 1 May 2022 to invite a prosecution. It believes that its services meet a consumer need for young people who are perfectly capable of making informed decisions about gambling without incurring personal debt. MB has just been informed that it will be prosecuted in Pulakia. It will ask the local court to seek a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on the legality of the Regulation under EU law. MB believes that the Regulation infringes the principle of proportionality and violates its freedom to conduct a business under Article 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In the context of EU law, advise MB of the substantive and procedural matters arising from its intended legal action.

LAWW3111-E1

3Marko and Helena are citizens of Kegland, a (fictional) EU Member State, who on 1 March 2022 moved with their 7-year-old daughter, Julia, to Grentop in Spetland, another (fictional) EU Member State. Helena, who was a professor of chemistry at the University of Kegland, applies for a job at the University of Grentop, which has recently advertised for a professor in chemistry. Her application is rejected because she only speaks basic Spetland language, and the post-holder is required to be fluent in the language. This requirement is designed to protect the Spetland language although, in practice, Keglandish is widely used and understood at the University of Grentop. Helena, therefore, accepts an offer to work as a chemist for a private laboratory.

Marko, who is an accountant qualified in Kegland, wishes to open his own private firm in Spetland. The Association of Chartered Accountants (ACA), which regulates the profession in Spetland, informs him that before he is given a practising licence, he needs to demonstrate his proficiency in the Spetland language by passing a language test which can be taken at the ACA’s central office in Arena, which is the capital city of Spetland. Marko is fluent in Spetland language because as a child he had a Spetland nanny, but he does not have a certificate to prove it. He also needs to register with the ACA and pay an annual fee of 400 Euros in order to practise as an accountant in Spetland. Marko is already registered with the Kegland Society of Chartered Accountants and pays their annual fee.

The city of Grentop has recently received a large gift from an anonymous donor to finance conservation works of historical medieval buildings. It decides to outsource part of the work necessary to administer the gift to external accountants. Marko submits a bid and is told that only Spetland citizens and EU citizens who have permanent residence are eligible to make bids because the work involves the management of public funds.

Julia attends the local primary school in Grentop. Her piano teacher tells her parents that she is very talented, and they should apply for extra free lessons under a scheme established by the Spetland Department of Education for musically gifted school children. Her parents submit an application but are told that Julia does not qualify because the scheme only covers children after they have attended school in Spetland for a minimum of 12 months.

Advise Helena, Marko, and Julia of their rights under EU law.

LAWW3111-E1

4In Case C-294/83 Parti écologiste ‘Les Verts’ v European Parliament, the Court of Justice (CJEU) stated that “the Treaty established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to permit the Court of Justice to review the legality of measures adopted by the institutions.” Since then, Article 263(4) TFEU has been amended, expanding the scope of its application to “regulatory acts” which are of direct concern to a non-privileged applicant.

In the context of the Article 263(4) amendment, and of the disagreement between Advocate General Jacobs and the CJEU in Case C-50/00 P Unión de Peque?os Agricultores v Council, evaluate the veracity of the Court’s observation in Les Verts in relation to the standing of non-privileged applicants within the system of judicial review in EU Law.

5Critically consider the extent to which the Court of Justice of the EU has drawn an appropriate balance in the area of EU citizenship between individual rights and the autonomy of a Member State to regulate its own borders so as to enable EU citizenship to reach its so-called destiny as the “fundamental status of nationals of Member States” (Case C-413/99 Baumbast).