Simplyliving04 wrote: » EU law question here I cannot wrap my head around that I really hope some kind soul can help me out with! Regarding Article 110 and justifications for indirectly discriminatory measures - Why can member states justify indirectly discriminatory measures so long as it pursues a legitimate policy objective (presuming of course it applies to domestic and imported products the same). Reading the Chemical Farmaceutici case and I still can't understand where the allowance for a justification comes from when the treaty article expressly prohibits "directly or indirectly" any taxes in excess of those imposed on similar products. The two types of alcohol in the case satisfied the similar test, one was imported the other not and were taxed differently. I can find no justification anywhere in the treaties for allowing such a difference on legitimate policy grounds. I feel like I am missing something outrageously obvious here. Many thanks if anyone can help clear this up for me as it's blockading my whole fundamental freedoms comprehension!
chops018 wrote: » Just having a quick look over my old notes and found this: 1) Justification for Indirect Discrimination MS can justify the tax if it’s to pursue a Legitimate Objective” – Unrelated to Origin of the Product: 1. The Test must apply in an identically manner to both Imports and Domestic Goods 2. Pursue a Legitimate Policy Objective 3. Be based on OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that Justify this Indirect Discrimination 4. Apply in a Non-Discriminatory Manner
Simplyliving04 wrote: » Hey Chops, many thanks for that! I guess my real question is not how various cases have satisfied this criteria as you laid out above but rather, where did the ECJ get the authority to even set out such criteria in the first place?! It seems as if the treaty provisions in 110 are against all direct or indirect discriminatory measures without providing a 'policy objective' derogation clause as provided for with other fundamental freedoms
chops018 wrote: » I cannot answer that off the top of my head and I am not going through treaties and past case law - had my old notes handy this morning so just thought I would pop that up in the hope it might help. Your question seems like it may be beyond the scope of the FE1's - forgive me if there was a certain question that came up on what you're asking but I do not think you need to go into so much detail - the case law is there for you to read, maybe go through the full judgment of the case? Sorry I cannot help you any further - I passed the FE1's last year and the EU subject in the March 2013 sitting so I would not be as fully immersed into the intricacies of EU Law as I once was. Funny - most people hated Constitutional and EU the most, whereas I found them fascinating to study. They are hard subjects to wrap your head around though.
FE1 student wrote: » I am dreading the EU exam. I hope it's nothing like the last one. I just can't get motivated to study it at all and time is ticking.
FEar1 wrote: » Hello everyone. Here we go again. Finally pushed myself into looking at Company Law in depth for the first time since 2010. As it turns out, I still don't like it. I am obviously doing up notes on the 'core' topics, which I hear are Directors, Corporate Borrowing, Minority Shareholder Protection and Separate Legal Personality (although I notice Courtney has asked the same SLP question twice in a row now which worries me). I think I read someone saying back in March that they thought Ultra Vires might just get one last day out too. Can anybody else sitting/suffering Company Law share their thoughts on what direction to go in terms of other topics?
neesie_85 wrote: » THIS IS MY LAST EXAM AND CANNOT GET MOTIVATED AT ALL!
sunshine and showers wrote: » I swear I'm still traumatised from the last sitting.
neesie_85 wrote: » I am looking at the manual and thinking this might actually be worse than Constitutional!
smeal wrote: » So far I've made notes on SLP, Directors, Shares, Corporate Borrowing, Capital Maintenance, Corporate Authority and Receivership- will probably throw in another topic at some point if I'm time but I really need to get my skates on for EU!
Kcookies2015 wrote: » Sitting Fe1's for the first time myself just finished my degree, having just done company the past 2 semesters I'm covering : Corporate Borrowing, Corporate Tort & Crime ( briefly) Directors & their duties,Examinership & winding up, Incorpoartion and it's consequences, lifting the veil of incorporation, reckless & fradulant trading and after that with 4 more exams.... I cant fit anymore reading in. I have some good notes and small few sample answers if you need a hand
FEar1 wrote: » I'm going along same lines smeal. Receivership looks OK (like Examinership I suppose) but I hear it comes up quite rarely. What are you covering in terms of Corporate Authority?
Legalfarmer89 wrote: » How are people finding Equity and Contract ( Im finding these topics which are supposedly easy annoying)? Im doing four including Tort and Land Law which I believe think are ok! Just finding it hard to get motivated to study consistently. For Equity obviously I've studied injunctions fairly conclusively, and looked at some of the smaller easier topics such as rescission, secret trusts, tracing and rectification which ties in nicely with contract. I've read a bit about constructive trusts, equitable estoppel and specific performance. What are the predictions this time around for equity? Is there anybody who has done the equity exam previously who could go into what kind of detail is necessary to pass! These exams are tiring!
sunshine and showers wrote: » Honestly, right now I'd prefer to put my efforts into an emergency referendum to exit the EU before October than actual study of the law.
