What action can the Commission take against the UK? Does the UK have any defences that it can rely on?

IntroductionThe European cathexis is required to ensure that all fr operation rent ups assent with EU practice of law and at that placeby seek out all infringements that argon winning place. If necessary, the tutelage whitethorn postulate an end to such infringements by commencing legal proceeding in the European tap of Justice (ECJ) Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. such(prenominal) proceedings be brought low holds 258, 259 and 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (previously Articles 226, 277 and 228 of the European Community (EC)). In the instant scenario, the thrill has resolute to take execution against the UK under Article 258 TFEU for failing to fulfill its obligations under the Treaty. This is being done on the grounds that the UK has failed to implement the new pointional (the coverive), adopted by the Council of Europe, that was to be implemented by all Member postulates by the 1 February 2014 . Article 258 states If the missionary station considers that a Member State had failed to fulfill an obligation under the Treaties, it shall deliver a conclude public opinion on the return after giving the State concerned the luck to submit its observations. The UK pull up stakes thitherfore lay down an opportunity to raise any defenses within the clock that has been specified by the bearing. If the UK fails to submit its observations, the outfit may thusly bring the press before the ECJ as shown in military commission v join Kingdom. Here, it was held by the ECJ that assuming the Commissions submissions be correct, it is non for the hail to transgress such an interpretation with the aim of correcting Article 2(1) of the Thirteenth Directive. This case demonstrates that even if the Commission does take live up to against the UK, this does not mean that the ECJ provide intervene. As pointed out by Haynes the Court has over the years been somewhat inconsistent in t erms of the full point of interventionism in which it is prepared to engage in cabaret to protect and defend the integrity of Community legislation and to iron out those inconsistencies that inevitably wraith in. Despite this, it is up to the Commission to decide whether infringement proceedings ought to be commenced Alfons Lutticke GmbH v Commission. The Commission thus plays an important role in found infringement proceedings against Member States and is open of taking whatever action it deems let in response to either a flush or indications of infringements which it detects itself. An investigatory process leave first be undertaken, which impart thus be take uped by a letter of formal hear that allow be served upon the Member State. at a time a letter of formal notice has been served upon the Member State, where necessary, a referral to the ECJ pass on then be made. The procedure that has been constituted under Article 258 TFEU consists of two phases pre-litigatio n and litigation. The intention of the pre-litigation phase is to after part a Member State with the opportunity to comply with the Treaty requirements or provide a justification of its reasons for not doing so Commision v France. Therefore, the Commission is cap commensurate of using the pre-litigation phase as a tool to persuade the UK to comply with the Directive. If the Commission is un lucky in persuading the UK to comply with the Directive, the pre-litigation phase entrust be used as a means of defining the subject-matter of the dispute conjugate sheaths 142/80 and 143/80 Essevi and Salengo. It go away then be up to the ECJ to repair whether the UK has breached its duties under the Treaty Germany v Commission. In communicating with the UK on its infringement, it is promising that the Commission will use the EU Pilot that was open up as a means of communication between the Commission and Member States. If the EU Pilot fails to resolve the dispute, the Commission may in stigate infringement proceedings by giving the UK the opportunity to submit its observations. This is done by number a letter of formal notice Commission v Austria. The UK will consequently have the chance to submit its reasons for not implementing the Directive as shown in Commission v Portugal. Accordingly, it will thus be argued that there was pressure on parliamentary succession and that the Directive will be implemented shortly. The UK will also be equal to(p) to put fore its observations on Portugals non-implementation of the Directive and the fact that it is very early to bring an enforcement action against the UK. If the Commission does not agree with the UKs response and the UK has not made any attempt to implement the Directive, the Commission may follow this up with a reasoned Opinion, which may then lead to an action before the ECJ Commission v Germany. The Commission, in its reasoned Opinion, will fit(p) out the action it requires the UK to take in order to comply with the Directive and the reasons why it thinks the UK has failed to fulfil one of its Treaty obligations Commission v Italy. Whilst the time limit that is to be laid down will be ground upon a number of different factors, including the urgency of the matter, it is presum adapted that the UK will have around 60 days to respond to the reasoned Opinion. This is intended to give the UK an opportunity to comply or put forward its right of defense reaction as illustrated in Commission v Luxembourg. If the UK does not comply with the reasoned Opinion, the Commission will be capable of deciding whether the matter should be brought before the ECJ. The ECJ will not be concerned with the nature or seriousness of the infringement Commission v Netherlands, but instead whether there has been a nonstarter to fulfil obligations Commission v Italy and the burden of demonstration will be on the Commission. Given that there has been a failure by the UK to fulfil its Treaty obligations under the new Directive, the ECJ will husking that there has been an infringement. Although the UK may be able to put forward a defence that the Directive will be implemented shortly, it is doubtful that this will suffice as there is very little chances that defences to infringement are successful Commission v Germany and Commission v Austria. Nor will the UK be able to argue that there has been pressure on Parliamentary time since it was evidenced in Commission v Spain that Member States may not plead that situations or practices existing in its internal legal order have caused the infringement as this will not justify a failure to comply with obligations under EU law. Nevertheless, in Commission v Italy Italy was able to rely on force majeure to justify non-compliance when it encountered temporary unconquerable difficulties preventing it from compliance. Pressure on parliamentary time is not likely to be considered a temporary insuperable difficult. Furtherto a greater extent, the fact t hat Portugal has failed to implement the Directive will be irrelevant as it was made clear in the Commission v France case that a Member State enkindlenot rely on a possible infringement of the Treaties by another Member State to justify its own infringement. Since the UK has contended that it will implement the Directive shortly, it is likely that the dogma of sincere loyalty (Article 4(3) TFEU) will apply. This principle demonstrates that Member States shall act in good faith by co-operating and providing the Commission will the relevant education it requests Commission v Luxembourg. 2. Does Mr Steymann have any legal right to postdate the matter himself in EU faithfulness? Mr Steymann will not be able to bring an action to the ECJ on the basis that his interests have been harmed by the UKs failure to implement the Directive Star Fruit Co. v Commission. However, he will have two options available to him. He can either make a complaint to the Commission, which might result in the Commission initiating proceedings under Article 258 TFEU, or he can bring proceedings in the UK mashs under the principle of read performance. Once a complaint is received by the Commission, a decision will then be made as to whether proceedings ought to be initiated against the UK. In making this decision, the Commission will insist on its discretionary causation to determine whether it is worth commencing proceedings. In Commission v Greece a complaint was made to the Commission, which resulted in proceedings being commenced. The Commission, in its reasoned Opinion, established that there was an interest in bringing proceedings and the action was deemed admittable in so far as it concerned the subject matter of the dispute. EU law infringements may also be challenged before guinea pig courts, through the principle of direct printing. As such, Mr Steymann may be able to pursue the matter himself the UK courts he if can demonstrate that the Directive has direct effect and that there exists an appropriate remedy. Once the UK implements the Directive, Mr Steyman will roughly likely sell more gas boilers as he appears to be deprived by the fact that the UK has failed to implement the new Directive. It will be more expensive to manufacture the equipment in the UK in compliance with EU law, which will prevent UK manufacturers from being able to sell the boilers at a untold lower price. The principle of direct effect allows Member States to be challenged at national level by litigants seeking to rely on the direct effect of EU law. Mr Steymann will therefore be capable of taking advantage of the direct effect principle, which enables individuals to immediately invoke a European provision before a national or European court as highlighted in Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. As the gist in the instant scenario is between an individual and the State, Mr Steymann will be able to invoke the European provision through vertical di rect effect. For a Directive to have direct effect, nonetheless, the obligations must be clear, precise and unconditional. This was determine in Van Duyn v Home Office it was held by the Court of Justice that Article 3 (1) of the Residence and Public Policy, Security and health Directive 54/221 was sufficiently precise to be capable of having direct effect, despite the fact that the scope of public policy and public protective covering would require determination by the Court. Therefore, it is likely that the Directive on the environmental performance of gas boilers will be capable of having direct effect if it is shown to be clear and precise as enunciated in Defrenne v Sabena. It may also be deemed unconditional on the basis that Member States are obliged to manufacture gas boilers in accordance with the provisions in the Directive Van Gend en Loos v Administratie der Belastingen. However, if the Directive is subject to extra measures, then it will not be capable of having dir ect effect Costa v ENEL. Overall, it seems as though the Commission has the ability to bring an end to the UKs infringements of EU law by commencing proceedings in the European Court of Justice. As there has been a failure by the UK to fulfil its treaty obligations, it is likely that the Commission will be successful in taking action against the UK. Nevertheless, the UK will still be able to put forward a number of defences, though it is unlikely that these will prove to be a success. Since the UK has made it clear that the Directive will be implemented shortly, the principle of sincere loyalty will most likely apply. Mr Steymann also has a legal right to pursue the matter himself through the national courts under the principle of direct effect. Before doing so, however, it would be appropriate for him to make a complaint to the Commission as this could then lead to the initiation of proceedings. In bringing the action himself, Mr Steymann will be required to show that the Directive has direct effect and that there is an appropriate remedy available.BibliographyBooksD Chalmers and G Davies. European Union Law faces and Materials, (London Cambridge University Press, 2010). S Anderson. The Enforcement of EU Law The Role of the European Commission, (Oxford Oxford University Press, 2012). S Weatherill. gaucheries and Materials on EU Law, (Oxford Oxford University Press, 2012).JournalsEUR-Lex. Document 12008E258 (2008) 27 July, 2014.Europa. The Direct Effect of European Law (2010) 27 July, 2014.European Commission. Infringements of EU Law (2010) European Commission Application of EU Law, 27 July, 2014.R Haynes. courtship C-582/08 Commission v United Kingdom (2010) De Voil Indirect Tax Intelligence, intensity level 12 Issue 173.R Rawlings. Engaged Elites Citizen Action and Institutional Attitudes in Commission Enforcement (2006) European Law Journal, mickle 6, Issue 4, 447.R snowy and A Dashwood. Enforcement Actions under Articles 169 and 170 EEC (1989) Eur opean Law Review, Volume 14, 388-389.S Enchelmaier. Always at Your Service (Within Limits) The ECJs pillowcase Law on Article 56 TFEU (2006-11) (2011) European Law Review, Volume 36, No 5, 623. LegislationTreaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) boldness LawAlfons Lutticke GmbH v Commission baptismal font 48/65, 1962 ECR 501Commission v Austria Case 10/10, 2011 ECR I-5389Commission v Austria Case 194/01, 2004 ECR I-4579Commision v France Case 159/94, 1997 ECR I-5815, para 103Commission v France Case 232/78, 1979 ECR 2729Commission v Germany Case 191/95, 1998 ECR I-5449, para 44Commission v Germany Case 74/91, 1992 ECR I-5437Commission v Greece Case 240/86, 1988 ECR 1835Commission v Italy Case 289/94, 1996 ECR I-4405, para 16Commission v Italy Case 78/00, 2001 ECR I-8195, point 65Commission v Italy Case 101/84, 1985 ECR 2629Commission v Luxembourg Case 473-93, 1996 ECR I-3207, para 19Commission v Luxembourg Case 490/09, 2005 ECR I-9811Commission v Netherlands Case 359 /93, 1995 ECR I-157, para 15Commission v Portugal Case 20/09, 2011 ECR I-2637Commission v Spain Case 195/02, 2004 ECR I-7857Commission v United Kingdom Case C-582/08, (15 July, 2010)Costa v ENELCase 6/64 1964 ECR 593Defrenne v Sabena Case 43/75 1976 ECR 455Germany v Commission T-258/06, 2010 ECR II-02027, para 153 joined Cases 142/80 and 143/80 Essevi and Salengo 1981 ECR 1413, para 15Star Fruit Co. v Commission Case 247/87, 1989 ECR 291Van Duyn v Home Office Case 41/74 1975 Ch 358 ECJVan Gend en Loos v Administratie der Belastingen Case 26/62 1963 ECR 1Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen Case 1953, 1953 ECR 1