# data[].attributes.body
In this seminar, I want to discuss with you aspects of the history of European integration. The aim here is twofold: first, I want to give you a sense why this process is so unique; and second, looking at the history, can help you understand why we face certain problems today the way we do.

I would ask you to read a textbook on history of integration; I reference Chalmers (Chapter 1) because it is available online from the library but any other should do as well. In addition, for the second part of the Seminar I would like you to read a case decided by the European Court of Justice (Wightman) so that you get a sense how the Court reasons. Finally, I want to talk a little bit about the backsliding problem in the EU; for this purpose please read Article 7 TEU and the article by Kelemen. I shall see you in a week!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Robert Schuman makes his declaration on 9 May 1950 in Paris

In championing the cause of a united Europe for over 20 years, France's main goal has always been to secure peace.

Europe did not unite - and so we had war. And now European integration will not happen overnight, nor in a single guise. It will be built through concrete achievements, that first create solidarity on the ground. To this end, the French government intends to place the entire Franco-German production of coal and steel under a common High Authority.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In championing the cause of a united Europe for over 20 years, France's main goal has always been to secure peace. Europe did not unite - and so we had war. And now European integration will not happen overnight, nor in a single guise.

# data[].attributes.body
In this seminar we will discuss two items: institutions and sources; institutions produce or speak through these sources.

Institutions: Our focus will be on the main institutions, ie (European) Council, Commission, Parliament, and briefly the European Court of Justice (you will hear more about this specific institutions in later seminars). I would ask you to read again Chalmers, Ch 2 (but as in the previous section any other decent textbook should give you a good overview).

Sources: In our discussion of sources we will discuss mainly primary law, i.e. Treaty law and secondary law, read Article 288 TFEU. This categorisation should help you to develop a hierarchy of norms but also understand how these sources differ in their effects. I would ask you to read Chalmers, pp104-110 (again, other quality textbooks are fine too). If you have a bit more energy left in the tank, have a look have a read through these two very early cases; both are very short! I promise! First, Van Gend en Loos and the second is Costa v ENEL

# data[].attributes.body
In this seminar we will discuss competences of the EU and law making; both items are connected because the EU can only engage in law making when it can identify a suitable legal base, which means that the EU must have competence in this field.

Competences: In the first part of the seminar I want to discuss with you the different types and categories of competences that have been established through Article 2 TFEU, that exclusive (Article 3 TFEU), shared (Article 4 TFEU) and supplementary (Article 6 TFEU) competences. Closely linked with competences are three principles which are mentioned in Article 5 TEU, conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality, which govern the EU competence order. Please also read Ch 4 by R Schuetze on 'EU Competences: Existence and Exercise' in the Oxford Handbook of European Law, ed by Chalmers and Arnull (OUP 2015) (available online from the Library)

Law making: In the second part of the seminar, we will examine how the EU makes laws, i.e. produces the different sources of law we discussed last week. We will undertake this discussion with a view to the principle of legitimacy. In preparation for the seminar I would ask you to read Chalmers Ch 3 (or as usual something else); from the Treaty read though Articles 20 TEU, 48 TEU, 289, 290, 291, and 294 TFEU. Little video on the ordinary legislative procedure here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How much energy does the European Parliament consume?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is it trending in the right direction? In 2021 the European Parliament used 161m kilowatt-hours of energy – 99m in Brussels, 30m in Luxembourg and…

# data[].attributes.body
In this seminar we will look into the question what kind of instruments the Court developed in order to make sure that EU law is effective; there are two doctrines which we will examine today: primacy of EU law and state liability; later in the seminar you will also hear about direct effect which falls into the same category.

Primacy: We begin our discussion with primacy, which you will find in federal systems; please read Chalmers, 193-198 and 212-232 (or similar). We will discuss how the ECJ developed this doctrine through the case 6/64 Costa v ENEL and Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft (please read both); we will also discuss how this doctrine of primacy by the Court has not gone unchallenged (read the case of Case C‑493/17 Weiss and others decided by the ECJ and the answer by the German Constitutional Court, para 116 (this paragraph is enough for you to read). Also, the identity clause of the Lisbon Treaty Art 4.2 TEU has been used by Member States and their courts to challenge the primacy of EU law --> please read the following example an Opinion by AG Spielmann, Case C‑448/23 Commission v Poland (so you have also read an Opinion by an AG)

State liability: product of "Eurosclerosis" - recall from our history seminar. Together with (in)direct effect state liability is an instrument which ought to ensure the enforcement of EU law; please read Chalmers, pp 296-304; it is important to be aware that the doctrine of state liability was also developed exclusively though case law by the Court; please read specifically Joined cases 6/90 and 9/90 Francovich as well as Brasserie; also have look at Articles 4.3 TEU and 340 TFEU. Finally, have a look at the case of Professor Köbler and his experience with the Austrian higher education sector.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
jusnews: in 24 Sekunden news von 24 Stunden senden Sie hier jusnews - Ihre news…

# data[].attributes.body
In this seminar we think about equality/non-discrimination as a constitutional principle; you will hear more about non-discrimination in the next seminar in the context of free movement law. What I would like to achieve in this seminar is that you learn more how equality/non-discrimination unfolded in the EU; but also how what different aspects we need to consider in the context of equality. I would kindly ask you to read the cases I mention here and also Chapter 24 from the Craig and DeBurca book (the pdf on Canvas).

Begin by reading Article 157 TFEU and the following three cases which should give you a basic understanding of the discussion around that provision: Case 80/70 Defrenne I, Case 43/75 Defrenne II and Case 262/88 Barber.

Also check out Article 19 TFEU and compare that provision with Article 21 CFR.

Next, we examine different concepts of equality/discrimination:

I. Equality as sameness

read and reflect about the (negative consequences) that can flow from equality as sameness in the cases Case C-157/15 Achbita and Case C-193/17 Cresco.

II. Equality of opportunity

this kind of equality is particularly popular in the context of European integration; the basic idea is simple: when you join a race, everybody should begin from the same starting line. Please read Case C-450/93 Kalanke for further reflection.

III. Equality and dignity

think what would change if equality and dignity are combined? Some national courts have walked down that pathway; the ECJ has not done so. The closest we have come with the ECJ is Case 709/20 CG v The Department for the Communities in NI - but this is not really an example for the kind of equality I am after in this category.

Different forms of discrimination:

a. (In)Direct discrimination

indirect discrimination uses, what seems to be a neutral parameter, in order to categorise; please read through Case C-161/18 Villar-Laiz. Direct and indirect discrimination is usually easy to distinguish but there can be confusion as Case C-79/99 Schnorbus shows.

b. Reverse discrimination

this kind of discrimination is possible under EU law as Case 175/78 Saunders and others shows; it means that EU law does not always require a levelling up between national and EU citizens.