Cambridge BA: EU Law Paper

Adriana is a Spanish national who has lived and worked as a self-employed architect in the United Kingdom for six years. Following the UK's departure from the European Union, she seeks to rely on the Withdrawal Agreement 2020 to secure settled status and continues her professional practice. The Home Office refuses her application on the basis that she failed to apply within the grace period and that, in any event, her self-employment was interrupted for eight months when she took unpaid leave to care for her elderly mother. She argues that her caring responsibilities constitute a 'legitimate reason' for interruption under the Citizens' Rights Directive 2004/38/EC. The Home Office further claims that, post-Brexit, EU law rights are no longer directly enforceable before UK courts and that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 extinguishes any such claims. Adriana also raises a claim under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, arguing that it imposes non-discrimination obligations on the UK in respect of professional services. Advise Adriana, addressing: (i) her right to rely on the Withdrawal Agreement and retained EU law; (ii) whether her caring responsibilities preserve continuity of residence; (iii) the enforceability of TCA provisions before UK courts.

BriteChem Ltd is a UK-incorporated company that manufactures specialist industrial solvents. It exports approximately 40% of its output to EU Member States. Since Brexit, France has applied a conformity-assessment requirement under its national decree No. 2021-845, which mandates that all imported chemical solvents undergo a three-month pre-market testing procedure conducted exclusively by French government-approved laboratories. The same testing is not required for domestically produced French solvents where the manufacturer holds a historic 'Certificate of Excellence' issued before 2016. BriteChem has obtained equivalent ISO and REACH-compliant certification but France refuses to recognise this. BriteChem's UK products are freely sold in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden without further testing. BriteChem also complains that a French customs authority has imposed an administrative charge of €150 per consignment described as a 'quality inspection levy' which applies only to imported chemical goods. Separately, Chemex SA, a French competitor, receives an annual state subsidy of €2 million from the French regional government to support 'regional industrial heritage.' BriteChem argues this distorts competition. Advise BriteChem on all potential EU law claims it might pursue, identifying the most promising avenues and any likely defences France might raise.

Mirela is a Romanian national who came to the UK in 2015 under EU free movement rights. She has worked continuously as a registered nurse for the NHS for nine years and holds a permanent residence card issued in 2021 under the EU Settlement Scheme. In March 2024, Mirela is convicted of a single offence of handling stolen goods (valued at £300) and sentenced to a six-month suspended sentence. The Home Office issues a deportation order against her, citing a threat to public policy under Regulation 27 of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016 (as saved post-Brexit). The Home Office's decision letter asserts that any conviction involving dishonesty justifies deportation and that EU free movement law no longer limits its discretion. Mirela challenges the decision, arguing: (i) she is entitled to the highest level of protection against expulsion as a long-term resident; (ii) the decision fails the proportionality test; (iii) she has acquired settled status, which carries stronger protections than bare permanent residence. Separately, Mirela's sister Daniela, who arrived in January 2021 and has not yet secured settled status, faces a parallel deportation order for the same conduct. Advise both Mirela and Daniela.

Critically assess the extent to which the doctrine of direct effect, as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union and applied by UK courts, achieved its transformative purpose of making EU law accessible to individuals. In your answer consider the limitations of direct effect — particularly the prohibition on horizontal direct effect of Directives — and evaluate whether those limitations have been adequately compensated by doctrines such as indirect effect, state liability (Francovich), and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The principle of supremacy of EU law has always been a judicial construction rather than a Treaty-based rule, and its accommodation within Member State constitutional orders has been conditional rather than absolute. Critically evaluate this proposition, with particular reference to the UK constitutional experience under the European Communities Act 1972, the Supreme Court's reasoning in R (Miller) v Secretary of State [2017], and the implications of the Miller No 2 / Cherry litigation for the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and EU-derived supremacy. Consider also whether the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 represents a clean constitutional break or a continuation of contested supremacy debates.