eu
This is the page for Caroline Bradley’s Spring 2010 EU law class at the University of Miami. There is no casebook for this class – we will be using materials which will be posted here (and on the materials page). Current assignments etc will appear on this page, and I will periodically archive the material in the Spring 2010 Archive page.
Class Policies
WEEK 9: March 8-12
Please read the rest of Materials Packet 3: Age Discrimination for this week. In the Mangold case the Court of Justice says that a Member State should disapply a rule of national law that conflicts with the general principle of EU law against age discrimination (this would be similar to what we saw happening in Defrenne, except apparently without the need to satisfy the requirements for direct effect). The Advocate General had suggested that the Court should use the (more limited) principle of interpretation which requires that national courts should, as far as possible, interpret domestic law to be consistent with EU law. This principle of interpretation has in earlier decisions been limited by the principle of legal certainty (where a directive is concerned for example the court has said in some cases that a directive should not be a source of criminal liability).
After reading the rest of the packet please look at the rules the UK introduced to implement the directive: The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. In particular we will focus on the ways in which the UK exercises the discretion allowed to it under the directive.
WEEK 8: March 1-5
This week we will finish Part 2 of the class materials. Then we will look at this Directive:
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ No. L 303/16 (Dec. 2, 2000).
We are reading this directive for three reasons: first to develop an understanding of what type of an instrument a directive is. We are studying cases which mention directives, so it makes sense to read one. Second, this is the directive at issue in the two cases we will be studying next. And third, we have been thinking about this issue of discretion on the part of the Member States when it comes to implementation, and we will consider this question as we examine the directive. I think that finishing up damages actions and the directive should be enough material for Wednesday.
So, when you read the directive please consider how much discretion the Member States have about how to go about implementing the directive. When are the Member States required to implement the directive? Do you think that the directive would be likely to produce direct effects?
Next we will be working on Materials Packet 3: Age Discrimination. Please read to page 16 of this packet for this week.
Comments»
[...] doing some digging for my class on the law of the European Union, I came across this rather interesting BBC article about a proposed law in France that would give [...]
Wow. I just looked at my ‘Internet Profile’ on Google and was quite surprised at what came up; I would definitely not object to having some of that information removed. I think the idea is great and that there is amazing potential for a company like this in the future. The EU as an institution appears to be miles ahead of any other organization in helping to protect its citizens from slander and other potentially ‘damaging’ information.