Home Solutions `Judicial Review in the EU fails the individual European`. Critically discuss
We write, we don’t plagiarise! Every answer is different no matter how many orders we get for the same assignment. Your answer will be 100% plagiarism-free, custom written, unique and different from every other student.
I agree to receive phone calls from you at night in case of emergency
Please share your assignment brief and supporting material (if any) via email here at: [email protected] after completing this order process.
The primary theme of the paper is `Judicial Review in the EU fails the individual European`. Critically discuss in which you are required to emphasize its aspects in detail. The cost of the paper starts from $129 and it has been purchased and rated 4.9 points on the scale of 5 points by the students. To gain deeper insights into the paper and achieve fresh information, kindly contact our support.
`Judicial Review in the EU fails the individual European`. Critically discuss. Question (1). Julia is an employee at a textile factory in London. She is having problems at work. Her line manager has instituted a new policy that those workers with a height of 6`2" (1.87 metres) or more will earn significantly more than other workers, based on their ability to assemble and carry lager amounts of fabric than the others.Julia is only 5`8" (1.74 meters) and is not eligible for such a wage increase the only workers who get wage increases are Phil, Steve, Ronald, Neil and Mike. these five men are all very good friends and they taunt Nick, Julia`s best friend, because his hearing is impaired. They also make crude , sexually explicit remarks about women on a regular basis in their open-plan textile production space.Neither the taunts nor the sexual comments seem to bother other people, as no one has yet complained, but they all make Julia very uncomfortable. Finally, Julia complains to her line manager about the new policy and the rude comments , but he ignores her complaints . Advise Julia of her rights under EU law. Question (2). Antonio and Julia are both fleeing from persecution in Honduras based on being part of the same political resistance group. They are friends , not related to one another. They boarded different flights with forged passports , Antonio flew to London and Julia flew to Milan. Antonio notified the border guards at Heathrow that he wished to claim asylum. Julia, on the other hand , did not notify Italian authorities that she wanted to claim asylum, instead she remained in Italy for six months and then , once she found out through mutual friends that Antonio was in the process of claiming asylum in the UK, she travelled by train to the UK and attempted to claim asylum in London. Once the UK authorities found out that Julia had been through other countries to get to the UK , they decided that she was `shopping around` for the easiest place to attain asylum status. They decided they would not consider her asylum claim and prepared her for deportation back to Honduras. Antonio was eventually granted UK citizenship. With his British passport , he travelled to Germany , where he stole a bicycle.He argued that it was a mistake , but the German authorities deported him and stamped "no entry for 5 years" on his passport. Advise Julia and Antonio of their rights under EU law. Question (3). The TFEU Article 18 non-discrimination provision is an absolute bar on discrimination against EU -citizens based on nationality. Discuss. Question (4). In 2004 a new building material, ` Terraflex`, is placed on the EU market .Trrraflex is revolutionary and particularly popular in Italy and Greece because it withstands serious earthquakes. However, slowly, workers installing Terraflex fall ill. Scientific controversy rages. No-one can conclusively prove Terraflex is the cause of the illness. Nevertheless, taking the precautionary approach , the European Council and Parliament release a Directive in 2010 , to be implemented by 2012 , providing for automatic compensation `for illness arising amongst employees installing Terraflex`.Italy and Greece challenge the measure before the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267, arguing that the measure is `manifestly unfounded`. The Court upholds the Directive, nonetheless noting in its judgement that `illness`,as used in the Directive, must somehow relate to contact with Terraflex. Both Greece and Italy transpose the Directive into their law but provide for compensation only in cases `where a link to Terraflex can be demonstrated`. Costas works for a company which has been commissioned by the Greek Government to install Terraflex in Greek army barracks.Dario works for a private company using Terraflex to build houses in Sicily. Both fall ill. Both are denied compensation by their employers because they are `unable to demonstrate a link between their illnessses and Terraflex`. Advise Costas and Dario of their rights under EU law.Question (5)... info:the writer can apply this reading case to question no5;..Francovich & Bonifaci v Italian Republic (Cases C-6/90 & C-9/90) (1991)ECR I-5357. "The obligation on national Courts to refer to the Court of Justice of The European Union under the preliminary reference procedure is fine in principle but unenforceable in practice" Discuss.Question (6)