Article Writing Homework Help

I need help creating a thesis and an outline on European community law. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is required. In addition, such compensation had to be made to a person, even if the infringement was the outcome of a decision of the court of last instance. However, the court would be liable, only if the violation was sufficiently serious and a direct causal relationship could be established between the infringement and the harm caused to the injured party (Kobler v Austria). Moreover, the highest national courts act as the court of last resort for individuals to rely on the rights provided by EC law. These courts of final instance are also duty bound to request a preliminary ruling, on the basis of the provisions of Article 234(3) EC. The ECJ, after taking these issues into account has ruled in favour of state liability being extended to judicial infringements. The ECJ rejected the argument that the principles of legal certainty and res iudicata would be affected adversely. It stated that proceedings to make a Member State liable would not have an impact on a national court’s decision as res iudicata. This opinion of the ECJ was founded on the contention that “proceedings seeking to render the State liable do not have the same purpose and do not necessarily involve the same parties as the proceedings resulting in the decision which has acquired the status of res iudicata.” (Council of Europe). This line of reasoning of the ECJ was held by some to be specious. Their arguments were based on the premise that the national courts were compelled to reconsider disputed decisions, in order to determine whether such decisions were really infringing EC law (Council of Europe). They were also required to find out the reasoning behind such decisions Individuals can claim against a Member State if it fails to implement a Directive or if its domestic law infringes European Community (EC) Law. In addition, no Member State can enact legislation that attempts to exclude state liability. The misinterpretation of provisions of EC Law will be treated as infringement (Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA, in liquidation v Repubblica italiana). Furthermore, the Community law disallows the enactment of legislation that seeks to limit liability to instances of intentional fault and serious misconduct of the courts. Such limitation is in the context of laws that are aimed at circumventing the liability of the Member State in other case, wherein there had been an explicit breach of the relevant law (Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA, in liquidation v Repubblica italiana). Hence, the competent national courts have to investigate the gravity of the infringement in the decision of a court. Such competent courts have to consider the judicial function of the infringing court and ascertain whether this infringement was obvious. It was also held by the ECJ that conditions, such as the special length-of-service increment under Austrian law, served to hinder the free movement of workers. Any hindrance to the free movement of goods or workers was against the objectives of the European Union. consequently, the Austrian condition was untenable (Wissink 419). In Brasserie du Pecheur, the ECJ established the concept of state liability. However, there was considerable confusion as to whether such liability was applicable to infringements committed by national courts. The ECJ eliminated this muddled understanding, via its decision in Kobler (Council of Europe). In this case, it ruled that Member States were also liable for breach of EC law by their national judicial authorities.