⇒ The CJEU has drawn general principles from several sources: the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are the two main sources of EU law. The TEU, which is an agreement between all Member States, focuses more on the principles of democracy and human rights and brings institutions together, while the TFEU broadens all the principles and policy areas in which the EU can legislate. In principle, EU treaties are like any other international agreement, which is generally interpreted according to principles codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention. [31] It can be amended unanimously at any time, but Article 48 TEU itself provides for an amendment procedure through Council proposals and a Convention of representatives of national parliaments. [32] According to Article 5(2) TEU, the “principle of conferral of competences” means that the EU can do nothing other than what it is expressly empowered to do. The limits of its jurisdiction are determined by the Court of Justice and by the courts and parliaments of the Member States. [33] Although the European Union does not have a codified constitution,[27] like any political body, it has laws that “constitute” its basic governance structure. [28] The main constitutional sources of the EU are the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which have been approved or respected by the governments of the 27 Member States. The Treaties define the EU institutions, list their powers and responsibilities and explain the areas in which the EU can legislate through directives or regulations. The European Commission has taken the initiative to propose legislation. [29] During the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council (which are the ministers of the governments of the Member States) and the European Parliament (elected by citizens) can make amendments and must give their consent for laws to be adopted.
[30] There are three sources of EU law: primary law, general principles of EU law and secondary law (detailed in the hierarchy of norms). ⇒ The 9 sources of law that make up the acquis are: decisions; Directives; Regulation; treaties; Case law of the ECJ; general principles; Charter of Fundamental Rights; international agreements; First, Article 4 of the 2004 Citizens` Rights Directive states that every citizen has the right to leave a Member State with a valid passport. This has historical significance for Central and Eastern Europe, when the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall denied their citizens the freedom to leave the country. [240] Article 5 confers a right of entry on every citizen subject to national border controls. Schengen countries (not the UK and Ireland) have completely eliminated the need to present documents and police searches at borders. These reflect the general principle of free movement set out in Article 21 TFEU. Secondly, Article 6 allows any citizen to reside in another Member State for three months, whether employed or not. Article 7 allows stays of more than three months with proof of “sufficient resources”. not become a burden on the social assistance system.” Articles 16 and 17 give a right of permanent residence after 5 years without conditions.
Thirdly, Article 10(3) TEU requires the right to vote in local constituencies of the European Parliament, irrespective of the citizen`s place of residence. Fourthly, and more controversially, Article 24 requires that the longer an EU citizen stays in a host country, the greater the rights of access to public and social services on the basis of equal treatment. This reflects the general principles of equal treatment and citizenship of the Union set out in Articles 18 and 20 TFEU. In a simple case, in Sala v. Free State of Bavaria, the Court ruled that a Spanish woman who has lived in Germany for 25 years and has a baby is entitled to alimony without the need for a residence permit because Germans do not need one. [241] In Trojani v. A French national centre for social assistance in Brussels who had been living in Belgium for two years, was entitled to the minimum state allowance for a living wage. [242] In Grzelczyk/Centre Public d`Aide Sociale d`Ottignes-Louvain-la-Neuve,[243] a French student who had lived in Belgium for three years was entitled to the “minimex” income supplement for his fourth year of study.
Similarly, in R (Bidar) v. London Borough of Ealing, the Court held that it was lawful to require an economics student at UCL Français to live in the UK for three years before obtaining a student loan, but not that he or she had to have additional “permanent status”. [244] Similarly, in Commission v Austria, Austria was not entitled to limit its places to Austrian students in order to avoid “structural, personal and financial problems” when foreign (mainly German) students applied, unless it proved the existence of a real problem. [245] However, in Dano v. Jobcenter Leipzig, the Court held that the German government had the right to deny child benefits to a Romanian mother who had lived in Germany for 3 years but had never worked. Since she lived in Germany for more than 3 months but less than 5 years, she had to prove “sufficient resources”, as the court had justified that the right to equal treatment under Article 24 within that period depended on legal residence under Article 7. [246] This is the procedure used, unless the Treaties provide that another procedure is to be used (see “Special legislative procedure”) 📚 FREE courses, content and other interesting gifts. Where an activity falls within the scope of Article 56, a restriction may be justified under Article 52 or by mandatory requirements laid down by the Court of Justice. In Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financiën,[276] a company selling commodity futures (jointly with Merrill Lynch and another banking company) sought to challenge a Dutch law prohibiting telephone solicitation of customers. The Court ruled that the Dutch ban pursued a legitimate objective of preventing “undesirable developments in securities trading,” including protecting consumers from aggressive sales tactics, thereby maintaining confidence in Dutch markets.
In Omega Spielhallen GmbH v. Bonn,[277] a “laserdrome” operation was prohibited by the Bonn Council. He bought fake laser gun services from a British company called Pulsar Ltd, but residents had protested the deadly entertainment. The Court held that the German constitutional value of human dignity underlying the prohibition was regarded as a justified restriction on the freedom to provide services. In Liga Portuguesa de Futebol v. Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, the Court also held that the State monopoly on gambling imposed on a Gibraltar company which had sold games of chance over the internet was justified in order to prevent fraud and gambling where opinions differed considerably. [278] The prohibition was proportionate as it was an appropriate and necessary means of addressing serious Internet fraud issues.