Tough but fair: The first infringement ruling against an ex-Member State (Case C-516/22, <i>European Commission v. United Kingdom</i>)

The judgment in Case C-516/22, European Commission v. United Kingdom constitutes an important precedent on several legal issues. A further development in the Micula saga, it finds that the UK Supreme Court violated its obligations deriving from Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 108(3), 267 and 351 TFEU, which still bound it as a result of the transitional period which followed the UK's formal withdrawal from the EU. This makes it the first finding of an infringement committed by a third country. Moreover, this is only the second time the Court has explicitly found an infringement to have been caused by a decision not to refer a preliminary question. Last, this judgment is a further development in the Achmea line of precedents, consolidating the Court's position on the conflict between EU law and intra-EU international arbitration.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x241305298
Primary Topic
European and International Law Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Tough but fair: The first infringement ruling against an ex-Member State (Case C-516/22, European Commission v. United Kingdom)

Araceli Turmo
Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
European and International Law Studies
article

Tough but fair: The first infringement ruling against an ex-Member State (Case C-516/22, European Commission v. United Kingdom)

Araceli Turmo
article en

Abstract

The judgment in Case C-516/22, European Commission v. United Kingdom constitutes an important precedent on several legal issues. A further development in the Micula saga, it finds that the UK Supreme Court violated its obligations deriving from Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 108(3), 267 and 351 TFEU, which still bound it as a result of the transitional period which followed the UK's formal withdrawal from the EU. This makes it the first finding of an infringement committed by a third country. Moreover, this is only the second time the Court has explicitly found an infringement to have been caused by a decision not to refer a preliminary question. Last, this judgment is a further development in the Achmea line of precedents, consolidating the Court's position on the conflict between EU law and intra-EU international arbitration.

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative LawVol. 31(5)
Droit et changement social (FR), Nantes Université (FR)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 60%
European and International Law Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Tough but fair: The first infringement ruling against an ex-Member State (Case C-516/22, <i>European Commission v. United Kingdom</i>) — Araceli Turmo · Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS