Vol. 13 (2024)
Precedent in EU Law: The Linguistic Aspect

Special Issues

Precedent in EU Law: A Practitioner's View

Published 15.07.2024

  • Paul Lasok

Abstract

This paper sets out a practitioner’s view of both the nature of decisional practice, and precedents in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), based on some 40 years of experience of judicial disputes. I consider the specific case of CJEU precedents (including both the Court of Justice (ECJ) and the General Court (GC)), before moving on to comment on how EU precedents have been handled by the CJEU and, before Brexit, by English courts. From a practitioner’s perspective it is always necessary to take account of varying factors that may cause a court to decide one way rather than another. Accordingly, it is not sufficient to rely on an earlier decision as a precedent: the underlying justification for the precedent and its continuing relevance to the case in hand must always be borne in mind.

Cite as: Lasok, JLL 13 (2024), 8–27, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2024.008

Keywords

case law, decisional practice, direct effect, jurisprudence, precedent

PDF

References

  1. Turner, Robert, Winegarten, J. I. & Kershaw, Michael (2016). Atkin’s Court Forms. 2nd Edition, Vol. 16. London: LexisNexis.
  2. Cane, Peter (2006). Taking Law Seriously: Starting Points of the Hart/Devlin Debate. The Journal of Ethics 10(1/2), 21–51.
  3. Fuller, Lon L. (1968). Anatomy of the Law. New York: Praeger.
  4. Klein, David E. & Mitchell, Gregory (Eds.) (2010). The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making. Oxford: University Press.
  5. Laferrière, Édouard (1887). Traite de la juridiction administrative et des recours contentieux. Le Conseil d’Etat : son histoire à travers les documents d’époque, 1799‒1974 (pp. 697–698). Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Available at: catalog.library.vanderbilt.edu/discovery/fulldisplay/alma991027994599703276/01VAN_INST:vanui (accessed: 11 July 2024).
  6. Lasok KC, Paul (2022). Lasok’s European Court Practice and Procedure. 4th edition. London: Bloomsbury Professional.
  7. Lasok KC, Paul (2012). Interpretation or Application ‒ Is the Court of Appeal Right? New Law Journal, 162(7528), 1120–1122.
  8. Quemner, Thomas A. & Neumann, Hugo (1977). Dictionnaire juridique: droit, finances, commerce, douanes, assurances, administration; Français-Allemand, Allemand-Français. Paris: Navarre.
  9. Steiner, Eva (2018). French Law: A Comparative Approach. 2nd Edition. Oxford: University Press.
  10. Cases
  11. AM&S Europe Ltd v Commission (1982) ECR 1575.
  12. Becker v Finanzamt Munster-Innenstadt (1982). ECR 53 (January 1982).
  13. Bonik (2012). ECLI:EU:C:2012:774 (December 2012).
  14. BP Soupergaz v Greek State (1995). ECR I-1883 (July 1995).
  15. Brown v Allen (1953). supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/344/443/ (February 1953).
  16. CILFIT and another v Ministry of Health (1982). ECR 3415 (October 1982).
  17. Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise v GMAC UK plc. (2014). ECLI:EU:C:2014:2131 (September 2014).
  18. Conde Nast Publications Ltd v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2006). EWCA Civ 976 (2007) 2 CMLR 904, (2006) STC 1721 (July 2016).
  19. Crehan v Inntrepreneur Pub Co. (2004). EWCA Civ 637 (May 2004).
  20. Elchinov v Natsionalna zdravnoosiguritelna kasa (2010). ECR I-8889 (October 2010).
  21. EMI Group Ltd v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs (2010). ECLI:EU:C:2010:559 (September 2010).
  22. Garland v. British Rail Engineering Ltd. (No 2) (1983). 2 AC 751 (April 1982).
  23. Halifax plc and others v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (2006). ECLI:EU:C:2006:121 (February 2006).
  24. Hardimpex Kft v Nemzeti Ado- es Vamhivatai Ugyek es Adozok Ado Foigazgatosaga (2013). ECLI:EU:C:2013:318 (May 2013).
  25. HM Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd (No. 2) (2013). UKSC 42 (May 2013).
  26. HM Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd. (2013). UKSC 15 (March 2013).
  27. Imm. Zwartfeld (1990). ECR I-3365 (July 1990).
  28. Jamet v Commission (1972). ECR 483 (May 1972).
  29. Kittel v Belgium (2006). ECR I-6161 (July 2006).
  30. Kloppenburg v Finanzamt Leer (1984). ECR 1075 (February 1984).
  31. Krizan v Slovenska inspekcia zivotneho prostredia (2013). ECLI:EU:C:2013:8 (January 2013).
  32. Litster and others v Forth Dry Dock Engineering Co. Ltd. (1990). 1 AC 546 (March 1989).
  33. Littlewoods Ltd and others v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs (2017). UKSC 70, (2017) 3 WLR 1401 (November 2017).
  34. Marks & Spencer plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (2002). ECR I-6325 (July 2002).
  35. Minister Finansow v MDDP sp. Z o.o. (2013). ECLI:EU:C:2013:778 (November 2013).
  36. NMB France Sarl v Commission (1996). ECLI:EU:T:1996:71 (June 1996).
  37. P British Airways plc v Commission (2017). ECLI:EU:C:2017:861 (October 2017).
  38. Parti ecologiste ‘Les Verts’ v European Parliament (1986). ECR 1339 (April 1986).
  39. R.A.Grendel GmbH v Finanzamt fur Korperschaften in Hamburg (1982). ECR 2301 (May 1982).
  40. Rheinmuhlen-Dusseldorf v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fur Getreide under Futtermittel (1974). ECR 139 (January 1974).
  41. Rheinmuhlen-Dusseldorf v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (1974). ECR 33 (January 1974).
  42. Servier SAS and others v Commission (2018). ECLI:EU:T:2018:922 (December 2018).
  43. Staatssecretaris van Financien v Schoenimport “Italmoda” (2014). ECLI:EU:C:2014:2455 (December 2014).
  44. TWD v Commission (1997). ECR I-2549 (May 1997).
  45. Van Duyn v Home Office (1974). ECR 1337 (December 1974).
  46. VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financien (2006). ECR 1-12121 (December 2006).
  47. Weissgerber v Finanzamt Neustadt an der Weinstrasse (1988). ECR I-443 (July 1988).