Institution Affiliation
European Union law is a system of laws that operate within the members states of
European Union. The EU is comprised of political institutions, social and economic
policies. The Court of Justice denotes that the EU laws represent the new legal order of
international law. Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union are the two main legal foundations that the 28 member states agreed
to work with. The Union give chances for the new members to join as long as they will
operate within the rules given by the organization. Nevertheless, existing members are
also allowed to leave in regards to their constitutional requirements.
The EU is run by five main institutions. There are; European Council, Council of
European Union, the European Parliament, the Court of Justice, and the European
Commission. Each institution has its role to play when EU laws are concerned. The
laws are drafted by the Commission and then they are approved by the Council and the
European Parliament. The European commission s responsible in proposing new laws
after it consults with other EU institutions as well as the interested parties. The
commission drafts the laws, which must then be approved that the Council. The
approved draft can then be amended by the Council and the European Parliament. The
National parliaments are given the opportunity to express their views on the amendment
and can also challenge if they do not agree that the action should be taken at the EU
level. If the challenged law is not approved by the established treaties then it cannot be
enacted. However, if the law is enacted, member states are required to put it into
practice.
Since the use of permethrin on crops is legalized among the EU laws it means that it
was passed through the procedure of making a new law before It was implemented.
However, France is in a position where she feels that the use of this chemical brings
more harm than good to the people. France states that permethrin poses a great risk on
the health of animals and humans who consume crops that are sprayed this chemical.
As a result, France wants to place restrictions on its use whereby it seeks provisions
that will limit the use of permethrin. By introducing the provisions that will limit the use
of permethrin in France, France is infringing the rights of a citizen of a member state
who is willing to produce a variety of products that will make use of the chemical. In this
regard, France will be violating the EU laws as all member states are required to put
into practice the EU laws that are enacted.
Otto, a Dutch produce of new varieties of Barley, is hoping to market his products in
France. He is concerned about the new legislation as he feels that it has an impact of
his production. It is possible for Otto to challenge the provisions set by France to ensure
that they limit the use of permethrin chemical in the country. However, Otto is not
guaranteed that the court will rule in his favor. In this regard, The Court of Justice is
important in running the laws enacted by EU and it can rule over the challenges
presented to it regarding EU laws. Otto can challenge France provision to limit use of
permethrin in a court of justice. During Otto’s case the court can challenge the France
law on the basis of the EU laws and how the law is allowed according to the treaty
article in which it is based. The court will interpret what the treaty article means and
explain whether it allows or not or it can argue in the basis of whether the law initiated is
intended to discriminate against some citizens. If the court is convinced by the
arguments the France provisions to limit the use of permethrin chemical will be declared
invalid. Otto can challenge the France law in a court of justice f he thinks that it is in
contrary to the country’s obligation under EU laws. If the court is convinced by the
claims, it can rule that the country is incompatible with the laws of European Union. If
such happens, then the member state is required to comply with the laws outlined by
the EU.
Otto can challenge the France decision to impose provisions to limit use of permethrin
in the country in the basis of him coming from member states of European Union. EU
countries are required to provide equal treatment to all the citizens of EU in matters
concerning tax. EU countries are not to conflict with the EU laws by either discriminating
on the basis of nationalities or introducing restriction that are unjustified in regard to EU
Treaty of Freedom. The fundamental treaty of freedom gives free movement of people,
good and services to all EU citizens across the member states. Therefore, the treaty of
freedom claims that unjustified restriction is the condition where a provision is imposed
which cannot be justified by the public interest consideration. In this regard, Otto should
use the provisions put in place that target the Barley importers. Since Otto is not from
France he can argue on the basis of being denied his rights of moving goods from one
country to the other as long as they are members of the European Union. If the
provision is evaluated, it will be used to determine if France should continue with the
new law or not. The fact is if the restriction will be justifiable by public interest
considerations, France will be allowed to enact the law. If the provisions will have
unjustifiable reasons, then it will be considered invalid.
Otto can also challenge France on basis of unjustifiable restrictions on the freedom of
movement of capital of persons receiving dividends. EU laws do not allow EU countries
to impose higher taxation on the person conducting business who is a resident in
another European Union country. While trying to implement the rue of limiting the use of
permethrin in France, the implementers should treat all EU citizens equally. This means
that France should not impose higher tax on importers from EU countries that are willing
to work in or work with France. Therefore, while challenging France decision, Otto
should consider using higher taxation imposed by barley importers to ensure that the
Court of justice uses that argument to either validate or invalidate the claim.
Besides, Otto can use the idea that France is not complying with the EU laws to
challenge France decision of restricting the use of permethrin.EU requires member
states to fulfill their obligation of EU by complying with EU laws and incorporating EU
legal acts into their national laws. Otto can challenge France by pointing that France is
not complying with the EU laws as it is trying to implement a law that is contrary to EU
laws. For France to implement a law that is contrary to EU laws, it must ensure that it
complies with the Treaties, regulations, and decisions of the European Council and the
Council Parliament. Also, in its legislation, France should ensure that it incorporates all
the EU directives that demonstrate how member states should implement their national
laws. Therefore, Otto can use the Court of Justice to assess if France has met all the
requirements before implementing the law that limit use of permethrin in France.
Otto can also use infringement cases to challenge France from implementing a law that
is contrary to EU laws. The first case of infringement that Otto can use is incorrect or
non-application of EU law by a member state. Since France is a member state of
European Union, she is not supposed to implement a law that is in contrary with EU
laws as it will fall under using the EU laws incorrectly. Additionally, any EU member
state willing to transpose a directive into national legislation should notify the
commission before doing that. It is likely that France has not notified European Union
Commission and the intension of imposing a law that is against EU laws. In this regard,
Otto can use the Court of Justice to evaluate whether France has taken that initiative of
notifying the commission before coming up with provisions that affect citizens of
European Union member states.
References
Mastenbroek, Ellen. "Guardians of EU law? Analysing roles and behaviour of Dutch
legislative drafters involved in EU compliance." Journal of European Public Policy 24,
no. 9 (2017): 1289-1307.
Slapin, Jonathan B. "How European Union membership can undermine the rule of law
in emerging democracies." West European Politics 38, no. 3 (2015): 627-648.
Jakab, András, and Dimitry Kochenov, eds. The enforcement of EU law and values:
ensuring member states' compliance. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Batory, Agnes. "Defying the Commission: Creative Compliance and Respect for the
Rule of Law in the EU." Public Administration 94, no. 3 (2016): 685-699.
Toshkov, Dimiter. "Compliance and enforcement of EU law: Who wins, who loses, and
who settles." In PEIO conference, Salt Lake City, USA. 2016.
Dörrenbächer, Nora, Ellen Mastenbroek, and Dimiter D. Toshkov. "National parliaments
and transposition of EU law: A matter of coalition conflict?." JCMS: Journal of Common
Market Studies 53, no. 5 (2015): 1010-1026.
Sari, Aurel. "Reversing a Withdrawal Notification under Article 50 TEU: Can a Member
State Change its Mind?." (2017).
Kochenov, Dimitry, and Laurent Pech. "Monitoring and Enforcement of the Rule of Law
in the EU: Rhetoric and Reality." European Constitutional Law Review 11, no. 3 (2015):
512-540.
Weatherill, Stephen. Law and values in the European Union. Oxford University