EU Law
Introduction
It is without a doubt that the European region similar to the rest of the global setting is governed by law. The European Union entails an institution that the formed by several European nations that deal with diverse economic, socio-political, military as well as other universal forces that affect the member nations. In other words, the EU law refers to a composition of treaties, court judgments as well as jurisdictional law which serves collaboratively with the existing legal systems within the EU. The law remains to be highly regarded amongst the member states including the United Kingdom regardless of the pending issue of exit[1]. In that, it helps in dealing with any conflicts that arise in relation to economic, socio-political or those that touch human rights. It is worth noting that the EU law is offered more priority over the state law in all the member states. The law is not only grounded on governance but also highlights some of the essential freedoms for the involved persons and governments which helps in promoting peaceful co-existence. EU law is highly applicable in different situations or cases in a local or international perspective especially in the presence or prevalence of related legal conflicts. Thus, in fulfilling the requirements of this assignment, this report offers a detailed analysis demonstrating how EU law relates to the provided situations in addition to advising the involved persons on how best they can enforce their EU law rights.
With respect to Tooting Ladies’ English netball club based in London, several issues that affect their players can be addressed through the EU law. To start with both Sandra and Charlotte have both in a contract with the Netball club and as European citizens regardless of their country of origin into the United Kingdom, they are entitled to notable rights. Contract laws are set and implemented by individual states within the European Union (EU)[2]. Nevertheless, the EU on the other hand as the main body of governance has synchronized most of the features of contract law throughout the entire European community in the quest of achieving uniformity and fairness for the member states. According to EU, it is the principle of consistency that has resulted in consistent growth and advancement over the last couple of years even though the member states have adequate liberty in exercising their independence when it comes to setting their personal contractual laws. Also, some of the existing EU legislation measures have a direct impact on contract law since the organisation superiority when compared to domestic or state-based laws. When making business deals in a different EU nation, there is always the option of where the contract occurs, for example, the specific jurisdiction in which the terms are developed. Then again, the EU has created a standardised contract that is widely regarded as the Principles of European contract law. This is legislation that entails the conditions under which a contract is formed in EU to be considered as enforceable in the legal ground.
With regard to Sandra’s case, the European contract law is applicable. She is a Belgian citizen who moved from Antwerp Angels in order to join Tooting club in the midst of the playing season in October 2018. Having agreed that she would be paid 2000 Euros for every match played she participated in the European masters league the following month but following allegations of rules violation of introducing a new player in an ongoing season the team lost the match. Given that Sandra was told that she would no longer be able to participate in the rest of the season her earnings have been reduced. There is a contract that exists amid both parties based on their agreement for her to play for the team. A contract refers to a lawfully enforceable agreement amid two or even more parties which is either between persons, companies or other different entities[3]. A contract usually develops a responsibility to engage or disengage in specific things[4]. In this case, the involved parties should in all cases adhere to the provided conditions of the contract without fail. There is an enforceable contract amid both parties since they have settled to a mutual agreement. In that, while the club needs Sandra to play for the team, she is supposed to get the agreed payment as part of the deal. The EU law is relevant to Sandra’s situation following contract law principles which related to the development and enforceability of any given contract. It is worth noting that an agreement that meets the highlighted principles becomes part of a contract even if it was given in an oral or written form. There is no evidence on whether the contract, in this case, was a written one but as long as they reached a mutual agreement best illustrates that a contract was created. The EU law protects the rights of all the parties in any given contract holding that both have an obligation of adhering to the agreements without infringing on the rights of the other party.
In the development of a contract according to the EU law, a mutual agreement must exist. In that, the involved parties must meet in a common ground about a specific subject which entails an agreement to do or not to engage in a specific subject. A contract, in other words, entails a settlement that gives rise to responsibilities which are compulsory or acknowledged legally[5]. Within the European contract law, there is three main requirements for the creation of an enforceable contract which is agreement, consideration and contractual purpose. In other words, the motive must be known by all parties, and legal which means that the parties must consider the outcome prior to agreeing with the provided terms. The first necessity is that all the parties need to come to an agreement which is made after an offer is made to a single party to the other, and it is acknowledged. In most instances, an objective test is utilised by the legal courts to determine whether the involved parties were in any form of agreement. This is applicable in Sandra’s situation because she agreed with the club about her participation in the netball matches in exchange of payment for every match. As part of the deal, Sandra fulfilled her obligation by participating in a match in November 2018 but since the club had violated the rules she was unable to participate for the rest of the season. This, therefore, infringes on their agreement which was specific on the conditions of the contract including time and payment. In that, Sandra’s contract was supposed to last for 2 years, but after playing a single match her potential earnings and participation are negatively affected. This leads to the first most principle of any given contract under the EU law known as an offer. Based on the principle one of the involved parties develops a promise to participate or abstain from doing certain things in the present or future. The promise is created in exchange for a specific return of doing the same thing. In the case that the other party has acknowledged the promise, then the whole bargain is summarised as complete. The same is applicable in Sandra’s situation because after the club made her the offer of a two years contract with a payment of two thousand Euros for each match played she agreed to it. This meant that she had the obligation of playing for the club to ensure that it achieves its set goals while in exchange she secures the working opportunity while getting paid.
An offer which is a necessary principle for an enforceable contract was made to Sandra by the club. An offer is best described as the expression of readiness to contract on specified conditions that are developed with the motive that it will lead to binding after being embraced by the person who is being addressed[6]. The club had already made an offer and demonstrated that its intentions were truthful by allowing her to play for the team until a rule was raised on the ground that specific rules had been violated. Acceptance is present in the situation because she did agree to the made offer about her participation, duration of the contract and proper payment[7]. According to the EU law, any given offer should be accepted in relation to the specific terms of the deal[8]. In other terms, the party must embrace all the offered terms. Acceptance of a specific proposal does not have any legal implication not until it has been communicated to the party providing the offer since it might present some complexities if the offer provider has no knowledge on whether the proposal has been accepted[9]. Sandra had accepted the offer and made the choice of playing for the club. According to the European contract law, a promise does not bind a contract unless it is fully back up by reasonable consideration. Consideration is a valuable principle in the development of a contract is necessary for ensuring that the offer is enforceable within the contract. For example, after the club made the offer to Sandra and provided the terms for their promise she made a sufficient consideration and accepted the deal. In that, this is evident based on the fact that she agreed to be part of the two-year contract while also embracing the resulting payment. Consideration entails examining whether the deal has been given considerable value[10]. In this case, the player must have made important consideration on the value of the offer or her as a player. In that in exchange for her services she ought to have weighed whether the offer was supportive of her wellness as a person and her value. Since the law does not infringe on the made negotiations amid the existing parties, one is required to made consideration following the raised proposal.
For contractual intention any given agreement even where consideration is highly applied does not bind as a contract, in the case that it was made with no motives is creating right intentions[11]. This means that all the participants must focus on the agreement being legally abiding. In this case, according to the contract law, it is evident that the situation is relevant since the intentions of the agreement were binding by the law. This is because the agreement was ethical and legal. However, the club did not have the right or legal intentions while creating the contract on the ground that it clearly understood that hiring a player in the middle of the season was a violation of the rules. This was never communicated to the player when agreeing to the offer which shows that the club did not make a serious proposal as an experienced Netball player Sandra ought to have made sufficient consideration of the offer prior to accepting the proposal. The promise a thus be considered as unenforceable as an agreement because the parties did not have the intention of ensuring that the contract is abiding by the law while the player failed to demonstrate any consideration. However, it might be that the club withheld some valuable information while making the proposal which thus hindered the ability of the player to made reasonable choices. This does not, however, imply that the contract is not valid because it can be made either orally or in a written form based on the requirements of the agreement. However, it is somewhat accurate that the contract sought to undermine the legal provisions of the league which resulted in Sandra being unable to participate for the rest of the season.
With respect to Sandra’s situation, as illustrated by the above analysis, it is evident that she can enforce her EU law rights following the European contract law. In that following the legislation, all the necessities of creating a contract have all been followed, but it is unfortunate that she has lost her payment and participation. Based on their agreement she would receive payment for each played match which then implies that for the specific season she will not be receiving any. Given that the club was aware of the illegality of the conduct then the law demonstrates that it should take responsibility without affecting the player. In this case, the player should seek to acquire an adequate compensation from the club for the damage caused since that is not what she had agreed to get in the past. In this case, it is rather clear that the club has not fulfilled part of their responsibilities while she was focused on ensuring that all the needs are met. This means that in the existence of an enforceable contract each party should play its part in meeting part of their deal regardless of the pending issue. The player has the right to claim compensation since the actions of the club caused her damage. However, since there is no form of agreement on such an incident in their contract a negotiation process ought to be pursued to ensure that they reach a mutual agreement without ligation. The process is cost effective and will help in developing a common ground for the involved parties[12].
At first glance it is apparent that Charlotte’s situation is well-suited with the EU law. In this instance, there are certain provisions that create a balance of individual’s rights and their families to move and settle freely in other European nations that are under EU. Charlotte is from Sweden which is a member state of EU and based on this provision she becomes a union citizen. In other words, a citizen of any EU member nation has the freedom of receiving similar freedoms and benefits in a different nation that is within the European Union jurisdiction[13]. The United Kingdom can, therefore, be categorised as the host state but having lived in the country for only four years, she is not yet eligible for permanent citizenship. Based on the case, the Tooting player has applied on his younger brother’s behalf who has learning disabilities a place in a local special needs learning institution. However, the application is refused by the local authority on the ground that children are only eligible for attending school if they can prove that they have resided in the United Kingdom for 6 years. All EU citizens are entitled to similar rights[14]. Since her Bjarne is a family member of a citizen of Sweden which is a member of EU he is also eligible to equal treatment. The child is under 21 years and lives with the player since she is responsible for meeting his personal needs as he is entirely dependent on her. Based on his individual needs it is rather clear that he is not able to take care of his personal needs that the citizen provide as driven by the severe health issues which makes him permanently related to the citizen. In this context, it is apparent that the child is entitled to an education that meets his special needs as it would have been offered in their birth country which is part of EU. The appeal to Education Support Council (ESC) to solve the issue is one of the most effective alternatives for the party. In that, since the child is dependent on her based on his special needs, the authority needs to review the benefits and rights that she is entitled to which should be transferred to the child.
As ESC is set to deal with the current dispute arising from the unique needs of the child it should refer questions about the refusal of the local authority to grant Bjarne a school place to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The player is not a permanent resident of UK, but the child is in need of proper care. The authority should refer the questions that led to the grant refusal by the local authority to the CJEU to ensure that the law was interpreted rightfully and applied in a similar manner as needed within the EU nation. This will help in ensuring that the institutions abide by the given law. In that, there is a necessity to examine whether the rights of the claimants were harmed by the authorities in the process thus ensuring that appropriate measures are taken in accordance with the EU law. For a child with special needs, they are in need of proper care including learning and such benefits should not be denied due to discrimination. This should be the same for Maria who was applying for a university spot but due to the fact that she has not lived in the country for 5 years is exposed to rejection. Following the rights of her parents, she should also retain the same benefits particularly when it comes to education. In this case, CJEU should be used to take any given action if the authorities feel that in a way the rights of the involved persons were violated. This is the best way of solving the involved dispute on the ground that both parties will get to understand the applicability of the law as well as the rights of all the involved persons. The first referral of the legislation would be to interpret the law[15]. Local courts and institutions should work to ensure that EU law is applied properly, but courts in distinct nations are likely to have a somewhat inconsistent interpretation. The interpretation can be useful in offering clarification to both parties on the pressing issue, and the same measures can be utilised in determining whether a local law is well-matched with the provisions of EU law[16]. The process is needed in identifying any pending issues with the Act based on its effects on individuals thus creating substantial grounds for future annulment. By referring the questions of the refusal to the legislation, this is the only means through which clarity and justice can be achieved[17]. In other words, it is not easy to solve any given dispute without referring back to the law[18]. The objective is to ensure that justice has been served by interpreting the law in an appropriate manner.
According to the EU, law citizens have the right to reside freely in any given EU nation. For Luis Charlotte’s husband has been charged with common assault after striking a coach. Besides, he has a past conviction of driving without insurance in England which raises fear of deportation in the case of conviction. With regard to EU law, deportation law originates from article 28 concerning citizens directive of 2004[19]. The provision holds that EU citizens are likely to get deported from a given member nation for reasons related to public security of policy[20]. There are several factors that might lead to deportation such as when the substantial account of different aspect has been examined. In that this will incorporate the period in which one has lived in the state, age, family, health, financial status and ability to interact with others peacefully. Since Luis and his wife are not permanent residents because they have not lived in the country for more than 5 years deportation might be grounded on less severe grounds[21]. However, the reasons must be connected to preserving the fundamental wellness of the society. This, therefore, incorporates guarding public order and countering any repeated criminal activities. The longer one has lived in a particular nation, the harder it becomes for them to get deported in a given state unless one is considered a threat to the stability of the public. However, even with the high levels of individuals protection that are provided by EU, the United Kingdom has developed quite a reputation in the broad interpretation of public policy and security as rationales behind the rising rates of deportation. However, EU notes that this conduct is not encouraged at any given situation and can intervene when needed.
Human rights are highly protected under EU law which notes that every individual is entitled to privacy and just trials[22]. In other words, deportation usually is driven by the provision of EU law and ECHR which generally seek to ensure that the government fulfils its obligation to the citizens[23]. Therefore, for Luis situation, it is evident that he has demonstrated repeated criminal acts that makes him vulnerable to deportation because he might be considered as a threat to the wellness of the public. This shows that the case is aligned with the provisions of the law which means that he is required to provide beyond any doubt that he is able to integrate well with the UK society and he is not a threat to the wellness of the public. Given that his past offense was not related to offending the public even though putting his life and that of others at risk, even after conviction, he is unlikely to be deported since he is well protected under the human rights provisions in accordance with the EU law.
In summing up, based on the above analysis, it is evident that EU law is highly applicable in all the cases. The law is highly used to highlight the actual needs of the individuals as European citizens. The contract made by the parties makes then eligible to equal treatment in their residing countries. However, certain restrictions are dominant since they are not permanent residents in the UK. Thus, the interpretation of the law by the CJEU is needed to ensure that the same provisions are used in all EU countries without fail.
References
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Antoniolli, Luisa, and Anna Veneziano. Principles of European Contract Law and Italian Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005. Print.
BBC. Q&A: What benefits can EU migrants get? 2014, (3rd November). Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25134521
Beale, Hugh, and Denis Tallon, eds. Contract law. Hart, 2002.
Beetham, David, and Christopher Lord. Legitimacy and the European Union. Routledge, 2014.
Dennison, James, and Andrew Geddes. "Brexit and the perils of ‘Europeanised’migration." Journal of European public policy 25, no. 8 (2018): 1137-1153.
Geddes, Andrew, and Peter Scholten. The politics of migration and immigration in Europe. Sage, 2016.
Granger, Marie-Pierre. "The protection of civil rights and liberties and the transformation of Union citizenship." Sandra Seubert, Marcel Hoogenboom, Trudie Knijn, Sybe de Vries and Frans van Waarden (eds), Moving Beyond Barriers: Prospects for EU Citizenship (2018).
Hodson, Dermot, and John Peterson, eds. Institutions of the European Union. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Kötz, Hein. European Contract Law. , 2017. Print.
Kraakman, Reinier, and Henry Hansmann. "The end of history for corporate law." In Corporate Governance, pp. 49-78. Gower, 2017.Top of Form
Lando, Ole, and Hugh G. Beale, eds. Principles of European contract law: Parts I and II. Kluwer Law International, 2000.
McKendrick, Ewan. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK), 2014.
Nugent, Neill. The government and politics of the European Union. Palgrave, 2017.
Orrenius, Pia M., and Madeline Zavodny. "Irregular immigration in the European Union." (2016).
Peers, Steve. EU Justice and Home Affairs Law: EU Immigration and Asylum Law. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Pollack, Mark A. Policy-making in the European Union. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015.
Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press, 2016.
Rutgers, Jacobien, and Pietro Sirena. Rules and Principles in European Contract Law. Cambridge: Intersentia, 2015. Print.
Stone, Richard, and James Devenney. The modern law of contract. Routledge, 2017.
Vogiatzis, Nikos. "A ‘European Year of Citizens’? Looking beyond decision 1093/2012: Eyeing the European elections of 2014." Perspectives on European Politics and Society 15, no. 4 (2014): 571-588.
Yong, Adrienne. When Britain can deport EU citizens – according to the law. 2017 (23rd November) Retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/when-britain-can-deport-eu-citizens-according-to-the-law-86896
[1] Dennison, James, and Andrew Geddes. "Brexit and the perils of ‘Europeanised’migration." (Journal of European public policy 2018 Pp. 1137-1153)
[2] McKendrick, Ewan Contract law: text, cases, and materials (Oxford University Press (UK), 2014)
[3] Beale, Hugh, and Denis Tallon Contract law (Hart, 2002)
[4] Lando, Ole, and Hugh Beale Principles of European contract law: Parts I and II (Kluwer Law International, 2000)
[5] Kraakman, Reinier, and Henry Hansmann. "The end of history for corporate law." In Corporate Governance, pp. 49-78. Gower, 2017.
[6] Rutgers, Jacobien, and Pietro Sirena Rules and Principles in European Contract Law (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2015)
[7] Stone, Richard, and James Devenney. The modern law of contract. (Routledge, 2017)
[8]Antoniolli, Luisa, and Anna Veneziano. Principles of European Contract Law and Italian Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005. Print.
[9] Poole, Jill. Textbook on contract law. (Oxford University Press, 2016)
[10] Kötz, Hein. European Contract Law. (2017)
[11] Peers, Steve. EU Justice and Home Affairs Law: EU Immigration and Asylum Law. Vol. 1. (Oxford University Press, 2016)
[12] Beale, Hugh, and Denis Tallon Contract law (Hart, 2002)
[13] Orrenius, Pia and Madeline Zavodny. "Irregular immigration in the European Union." (2016).
[14] Geddes, Andrew, and Peter Scholten. The politics of migration and immigration in Europe. Sage, 2016.
[15] Nugent, Neill. The government and politics of the European Union. Palgrave, 2017.
[16] Granger, Marie-Pierre. "The protection of civil rights and liberties and the transformation of Union citizenship." Moving Beyond Barriers: Prospects for EU Citizenship (2018).
[17] Hodson, Dermot, and John Peterson, eds. Institutions of the European Union. Oxford University Press, 2017.
[18] Vogiatzis, Nikos. "A ‘European Year of Citizens’? Looking beyond decision 1093/2012: Eyeing the European elections of 2014." Perspectives on European Politics and Society 15, no. 4 (2014): 571-588.
[19] Yong, Adrienne. When Britain can deport EU citizens – according to the law.( 23rd November, 2017)
[20] Pollack, Mark A. Policy-making in the European Union. (Oxford University Press, USA, 2015)
[21] Yong, Adrienne. When Britain can deport EU citizens – according to the law.( 23rd November, 2017)
[22] BBC. Q&A: What benefits can EU migrants get? (3rd November 2014)
[23] Beetham, David, and Christopher Lord. Legitimacy and the European Union. (Routledge, 2014)
