General cases regarding Factortame

General cases regarding Factortame

Introduction

Factortame Limited is a UK company whose shareholders are all Spanish nationals. It has a fleet of 53 fishing vessels from Spain, since 1980 all registered in the Register under British Merchant In Case Factortame, the House of Lords made a preliminary ruling in which asked whether a national court is oblige to grant interim measures suspending the application of national law to protect the rights claimed under Community law to therefore, not subject of a decision of the Court on a question, where federal law does not provide for such stopgap measures. The Court recalls that it can be argued juice boxes that h an s Factortame remedy Involve judicial enforcement of the will of Parliament, Expressed in the European Communities Act 1972, that future British legislation required to in accordance to Community law. A company incorporated in the United Kingdom and having its registered office, and at least 75% of capital is held by one or more qualified persons or companies which at least 75% of the directors are qualified persons, which is not the case Factortame Limited.

The latter decided to declare this law legally invalid. It is therefore, to determine who can legally declare the law null and in what capacity (Berge 2000). The UK and Spain are both members of the European Union at the time of the facts. However, we know from Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union "the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of treaties, the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions and bodies of the Union.” Thus, it can legally declare the law void if it conflicts with a European treaty. However, this law can be interpreted as going against the principle of freedom of a company to where it wants to implement in the European Union.

Discussion

Art 4 of the TFEU imposes an obligation on member states to fulfill their EU obligations. However, the treaty does not specify or define what constitutes a breach but the court of Justice holds that not only acting but failure to act also constitutes a breach. In Commission V Belgium 1987, the commission brought an action against Belgium for failure to implement a directive to do with protection of drinking water against pollution. In our case above the United Kingdom seemed to have breached their obligation by withholding part of the EU budgetary contributions therefore, the Commission has the right whether or not to take action against the UK under art 258 however, under this article, the commission can bring enforcement proceedings against a member state in breach of a treaty article. However, no individual or company should have compelled the commission to take this action but only through their investigations as the commission has discretion, not a duty to start a proceeding as in the Spanish strawberries case. Even so this discretion could be seen to lessen the effectiveness of ...