Waiting for answer This question has not been answered yet. You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Compose a 1500 words essay on Eu law. Needs to be plagiarism free!The case commenced in the Politierechter (Magistrate Dealing with Commercial Offences). The action was brought by the officier Van Jus
Compose a 1500 words essay on Eu law. Needs to be plagiarism free!
The case commenced in the Politierechter (Magistrate Dealing with Commercial Offences). The action was brought by the officier Van Justitie (Public Prosecutor). The defendant was the company KOLPINGHUIS NIJMEGEN BV (its legal representative).
This case was referred to the European Court of Justice by the ARRONDISSE-MENTSRECHTBANK (DISTRICT COURT), ARNHEM, Netherlands. The above judicial authority of Netherlands brought this case in the European Court of Justice in accordance with the article 177 of the EEC Treaty asking for a preliminary ruling (in order for this ruling to be used in the criminal proceeding pending before the specific national court regarding the case under examination). The national court (the District Court of Netherlands) brought this case before the ECJ based on the existence of the Council Directive 80/77/EEC of 15 July 1980 ‘on the approximation of the Laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters’ and particularly to the provision included in this Directive that ‘the member states are to take the measures necessary to ensure that only waters extracted from the ground of a member state and recognized by the responsible authority of that member state as natural mineral waters satisfying the provisions of the particular Directive’ (par. 3 of the case).
In the particular case the following parties intervened in order to submit their observations: The Netherlands Government (which is the state directly related with the case under examination), The Italian Government, the United Kingdom and the Commission of The European Communities. The reference to the appearance and the intervention of these parties is made in the section of case which refers to the distribution of the costs related with the case brought before the ECJ.
In accordance with the ECJ the Directive 80/777 could not have been enforced against the
