Comments for EU Case Law

Comment on Rudy Grzelczyk [2001] by On the non discrimination principle (…and its limits?) | Beerkens' Blog

Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:11:05 +0000

[…] cases, the principle of non-discrimination plays an important role. The same was the case for the Grzelczyk Case and the Bidar Case, which can be seen as a predecessor of the Förster […]

Comment on Hartmann [2007 pending] by Chicago Personal Injury Attorneys

Chicago Personal Injury Attorneys — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:10:45 +0000

Well written. I enjoyed reading it and look forward to the next law articles from you.

Comment on Parliament v Council [2006] by Compromise Agreement Oxford Employment Law

Compromise Agreement Oxford Employment Law — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:32:16 +0000

Really interesting blog, pleasure to read.
Keep up the good work.

Comment on Hartmann [2007 pending] by Frank Unsworth

Frank Unsworth — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:45:19 +0000

Sorry, You are working in another country but your family are at home , say Poland. They should recieve benifit from the home country and not the emloyer country of the husband or partner. This means that they are indeed getting paid twice and on payment say from the UK is not the same exchange rate as Poland. Somthing a miss here. EU gone mad gain.

Comment on Commission v Netherlands [2007] by Florin ALEXANDRU

Florin ALEXANDRU — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:55:46 +0000

First, interpretation of the boundaries to which a Member State extend the “public security” reasons without getting in contradiction with the reserved right of the Commission to interpret this concept is questionable.

As long as the public security is a matter of interpretation exlusively in the domestic law of the given country, the rights that are derived from this matter should also be interpreted by the domestic law first and not in the frame of the Communities law, unless explicitey provided so in Treaties or Directives.

On the other hand, according to the judgement, the “automatic connection” is “possible” (then, not proven at the time of the judgement). Seen from this point, the judgement apparentely leaves the interpretation of the reason for expulsion to the given domestic Court, anyway.

There is not enough to state that it is possible, it should be proven that the case brought to the instance was causally related to that “possibility” - I did not found this demonstration in the rationale of the judgement.