Skip to main content

European Court Of Justice: Interpretations

Volume 570: debated on Thursday 21 March 1996

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Statement made by Baroness Chalker of Wallasey on 12 March 1996 (H.L. Deb., col. 758), whether they will give examples of cases in which "the ECJ's interpretations some times seem to go beyond what governments intended when laws were framed".

Examples of cases where the ECJ appears to have interpreted the treaties or Community legislation in a way which develops the law include:

C294/83 Les Verts and C70/88 EP v. Council. (Court allows EP to be challenged and to challenge under Article 173)

C12/81 Garland v. BREL and C262/80 Barber. (Court expands the definition of "pay" in Article 119)

C152/84 Marshall and C137/94 Richardson. (Court rules that retirement age and exemption from prescription charges cannot be linked to state pension age)

C392/92 Schmidt. (Court rules that the transfer of a single employee is caught by the Acquired Rights Directive).