Sample Of EU Law Assignment

You may assume for the purposes of this examination that all relevant events occurred in the transition period provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement.



The Swimming Pool (Health) Directive 2018/49 (‘the Directive’) requires Member States to take measures no later than 29 February 2020 banning the use of diatomaceous earth (‘DE’) in the filtration systems of public swimming pools. The reason for the ban is that filtration systems using DE are not as effective in eliminating harmful bacteria from swimming pools as other systems.

The UK government did not take any measures to implement the Directive, as it considered that the Swimming Safety Act 2017 (‘the 2017 Act’), an Act of the UK Parliament, already provided sufficient protection. The 2017 Act requires operators of public swimming pools to use ‘effective filtration systems’.

In July 2020 Tahir became severely ill with vomiting and diarrhoea after swimming in his local swimming pool in Craddock, England. The swimming pool is operated by Rayburn Recreation Ltd (‘RRL’), a non-profit organisation which runs over 100 sport and leisure facilities on behalf of local authorities in many parts of England. RRL operates the swimming pool in Craddock pursuant to an agreement with the Craddock City Council, the local authority which owns the swimming pool. The agreement, concluded in 2015, lasts for 10 years and requires RRL to run the swimming pool in accordance with the terms of the agreement and to submit to regular reviews by council officials.

Kim, a public health expert, inspected the swimming pool shortly after Tahir became ill and found that it still used a DE filtration system. She then concluded that his illness had been caused by a particular bacterium which would not have been present if an alternative filtration system had been used.

(a)        Advise Tahir whether he has any remedies under EU Law against RRL or anyone else. You may assume that the Craddock City Council has no liability for Tahir’s illness.

Yes, Tahir does not have remedies under EU law against RRL because of several reasons. First, the EU laws tend to cater for rights rather than the case where there is an absence of EU rules, it is the responsibility of the Member State to identify the courts having jurisdiction and provide for the rules governing actions that are intended to protect the rights of individuals by EU law. In this case, the UK has its own law (Swimming Safety Act 2017,) that can be used by Tahir to file a case against RRL. Article 17 on remedies and enforcement requires that “member state shall introduce into their national legal systems such measures as necessary to ensure real and effective compensation or reparation as the Member States so determine for the loss and damage sustained by a person injured…”. In this case, the UK has its own law that provide sufficient protection of swimming pool water and hence, Tahir could use this law to sue RRL for damages. Therefore, there are no remedies under the EU that Tahir could use against RRL.

Suppose for this part of the question that the EU had passed an EU Regulation instead of a Directive banning DE in the filtration systems of public swimming pools.

(b)        Analyse how your answer would differ.

In case the EU had passed an EU Regulation instead of a directive, Tahir could have the remedies under the EU against RRL. According toRegulation No 19/65/EEC EU “empowers the Commission to apply Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by regulation to certain categories of vertical agreements and corresponding concerted practices falling within Article 101(1) of the Treaty”. In this regard, Tahir could sue RRL under the EU regulation because of the above act.

Place Order For A High-Quality Assignment Now

Use Discount Code MINUS15 AND GET15% DISCOUNT


Nadia, a national of the Republic of Ireland, works for Montague Adventures Ltd (‘Montague’), a nationwide British travel agency. Nadia is a financial executive, part of a team responsible for monitoring the company’s financial situation and profitability. Roger works for Montague as a travel consultant. Travel consultants assist clients in making travel arrangements for both business and holiday purposes. Montague recently implemented a restructuring programme following an agreement with the trade union representing the bulk of its staff pursuant to which financial executives and travel consultants were placed in the same grade. Two-thirds of the financial executives are women, while three-quarters of the travel consultants are men.

Nadia has discovered that last month Roger received a ‘productivity bonus. Nadia complained to her manager who told her all travel consultants are eligible for this bonus, regardless of their sex. It is based on the value of trips that they arrange, and its purpose is to ensure that the travel consultants do their best to conclude deals for the company.

Bring claim on sex discrimination relying in EU laws

Nadia can bring a claim against Montague about the issue on discrimination relying on EU law. Article 26 on Prevention of Discrimination states that “Member States shall encourage, in accordance with national law, collective agreements or practice, employers and those responsible for access to vocational training to take effective measures to prevent all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex, in particular, harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace, in access to employment, vocational training and promotion.”. in addition, Through Article 29, Nadia can sue Montague through EU regulation on the issue of Gender Mainstreaming, the EU regulation requires that “Member States shall actively take into account the objective of equality between men and women when formulating and implementing laws, regulations, administrative provisions, policies and activities in the areas referred to in this Directive.” In this case, Nadia can rely on the above provisions and bring a claim against the company in relation to the provision given by the EU.

Assume for this part of the question only that Nadia leaves Montague and accepts an offer of a part-time job with a company in Montpellier, France. She intends to work about 12 hours per week and to spend the rest of the time sightseeing and playing rugby; she is a keen amateur rugby player. She would also like her husband, John, a Liberian national, and her sister, Lorraine, an Antiguan national, to accompany her. Lorraine lives with Nadia and John in their home in England. 

(b)       Advise Nadia, John and Lorraine whether they have the right under EU Law to enter and reside in France.

In the case of Nadia, she has the right under EU law to enter and reside in France. This is supported by Section 2 of the Employment and Equality of Treatment in Article 7 states that “a worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards remuneration, dismissal, and, should he become unemployed, reinstatement or re-employment. 2. He shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national workers. 3. He shall also, by virtue of the same right and under the same conditions as national workers, have access to training in vocational schools and retraining centres.”

In addition, article 21 under “The Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union”, claims that “It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health: (a) to accept offers of employment actually made; (b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose; (c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment by the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action”. Thus, Nadia will use the above law provisions to gain her rights when working and residing in France.

For John and Lorraine, the family members shall only be admitted in France through general educational, apprenticeship, and vocational training courses under similar conditions as the nationals of that State as provided in Section 3 of Worker’s Family in Article 10. 

Shortly after arriving in Montpellier, Nadia plays in a rugby match. During the match, Nadia has an argument with the referee and then slaps her in the face. Nadia is prosecuted for assault. During her trial it is discovered that four years ago Nadia was convicted in England of assaulting a supporter of an opposing rugby team during a fight after a rugby match in Leeds and fined £300.

The judge hearing the case fines Nadia €600 and orders her expulsion because she is clearly a person of violence.

(c)      Advise Nadia whether, under EU Law, she has any grounds for challenging her expulsion.

Yes, Nodia has a right to challenge her expulsion as she the law of the EU requires that citizens of member states shall be treated the same as other citizens in the host country in court.



Budd Textiles plc (‘Budd’), an English company and a fashion clothing manufacturer, has decided to open a new factory in Hungary to take advantage of lower manufacturing costs there. However, it has encountered the following problems arising from Hungarian legislation:

(i)       All foreign clothing manufacturers must employ an expert in local Hungarian fashion to ensure that the clothing they produce is appropriate for the local market. According to the Hungarian authorities, some foreign clothing manufacturers have become insolvent, leaving unpaid wages, as they produced unsuitable clothing for the Hungarian market. However, Budd intends to export most of the clothing produced in its Hungarian factory to other countries both inside and outside the EU;

(ii)      All clothing manufacturers must source 75% of their fabrics from suppliers within the EU. The aim of this requirement is to ensure that clothing manufacturers use fabrics produced in good working conditions. According to the Hungarian authorities, EU Law on working conditions protects workers in the EU from exploitation, but there is no guarantee that working conditions outside the EU will be acceptable. Budd sources most of its fabrics from outside the EU where they are cheaper. Manufacturers that fail to comply with the sourcing requirement can be fined.

(a)      Explain whether Budd has any rights under EU Law to challenge the Hungarian legislation. Your answer should explain why the Services Directive 2006/123 does NOT apply to this part of the question.

Budd does not have any rights under EU Law to challenge the Hungarian legislation because the directive under the “Directive 2006/123/EC Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Of 12 December 2006 On Services”, claims that the directives do not address the liberalization of services of general economic interest, which are reserved to public or private entities, nor with the privatization of public entities providing services.

In addition, Budd does not have rights under the EU law to challenge the Hungarian legislation because Article 1 of the above directive ensures states that “This Directive does not affect the freedom of Member States to define, in conformity with Community law, what they consider to be services of general economic interest, how those services should be organized and financed, in compliance with the State aid rules, and what specific obligations they should be subject to.” Therefore, the Services Directive 2006/123 does not apply in this case because Hungarian has its own legislation that aim at protecting the economic interests of its people and business, and hence, any business that desires to invest in the country must adhere to its laws and regulations.

Budd also gives advice to fashion designers for payment of a fee. It wants to send two employees to a fashion show in Uppsala, Sweden, as it believes that they will be able to find customers for its advice service there. It wants to rent some storage space for the duration of the fashion show (about 10 days) to store some of its clothing as its employees may want to show potential customers some of its designs. However, a local bye-law prohibits short-term lettings of less than six months from preventing drug trafficking. According to the police in Uppsala, drug traffickers have been using short-term lettings of storage space to facilitate their illegal trade.

(b)      Advise Budd whether it has any grounds under EU Law for challenging the Uppsala by law. Your answer should explain why the Services Directive 2006/123 DOES apply to this part of the question.

Budd has the right under EU Law to challenge the Uppsala by law. The directive claims that “This Directive does not affect Member States’ rules of criminal law. However, Member States may not restrict the freedom to provide services by applying criminal law provisions that specifically regulate or affect access to or exercise a service activity to circumvent the rules laid down in this Directive.  Therefore, Uppsala has no right to deny Budd the right to let the storage room as they will have the documentation to support their business.