Case note on case: C-274/12 P, Telefónica SA v European Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2013:852. This will be a case note, not an essay, and it is very important that you follow the exact format that I will show you now as my professor requested it. I will also include the guidance and help given by my professor that you will have to follow strictly in order to achieve high marks. The case note has to be divided in 5 different paragraphs, or sections, each of different length and each with different importance, meaning that each will have a different % of the mark Section 1: Facts and procedure (300-350 words): identify the key relevant facts of the case and provide a brief summary of the decisions reached by other courts earlier in the case. This requires you to identify among the facts of the case those which are essential to understand what the case is about and to explain what decisions were reached at earlier stages in the procedure, if any. In other words, what is required is a brief summary of thebackground of the case and the aim here is to be as concise as possible. This section will have a 5% weight on the total mark Section 2: Points of law raised by the case (200-250 words): formulate the main legal question(s) raised by the case. This section consists of identifying each of the legal issues raised by the case. This should consist of a single question for each point identified. In preliminary rulings, those points are normally expressed in the questions referred by the national court. However, questions from national courts are not always phrased ideally and may need to be reformulated/aggregated to focus on the essential legal points at stake. A good way to identify the legal issues is to start from the outcome of the case in the operative part of the judgment and work one’s way backwards towards the question raised. This section will have a 5% weight on the total mark Section 3: Outcome of the case (200-300 words): indicate the conclusion reached by the Court on this(/these) question(s). This is the actual decision reached by the Court and can normally be found in the operative part of the judgment (i.e. what follows: “the Court… hereby rules” at the end of the judgment). Do not discuss the reasoning leading to the conclusion reached by the Court in this section (leave that for section 4); just indicate the outcome itself. Answering this part is likely to involve more or less paraphrasing the operative part of the judgment but you should avoid, as far as possible, a straight copying of it: try to put it in yourown words so as to make it clearer. This section will have a 5% weight on the total mark Section 4: Analysis (900-1000 words): explain the reasoning of the Court and the contribution of the judgment to the development of the law. This is where you explain the reasoning followed by the Court to reach its conclusions and, importantly, situate the case in the overall caselaw: is this an unprecedented/ groundbreaking judgment that opens new perspectives? Is this a judgment that builds on earlier cases and, if so, what does it add to the existing caselaw? Does it, on the contrary, depart from earlier caselaw? Does the judgment merely apply the law without adding anything new? You may also wish to situate the judgment with reference to later developments, if any: has the judgment been followed in later cases? Has the solution become obsolete? Were there zones of obscurity/unresolved issues in that judgment that were later clarified? etc… This section will have a 45% weight on the total mark Section 5: Evaluation (900-1000 words): critically evaluate the strengths and/or shortcomings of the judgment. This is where you formulate a view as to the merits of the judgment. Evaluation could be based on doctrinal considerations. Thus, one could perhaps evaluate how well the judgment fits within the body of law. For instance, a case could introduce conflicts or dissonances with other cases of doctrines or, on the contrary, it could make the existing body of law more coherent or complete. Alternatively, evaluation could focus on the impact of the judgment in practice: is the judgment going to make a significant difference in practice? It is likely to be followed or ignored? Will it be difficult to comply with? Or one could also conceive of evaluations centred on the impact of a judgment on the judicial system itself: how will other courts react to the judgment? Will applying it create difficulties for them? Is the judgment likely to result in divergences between courts? Etc… Where, as in this case, you are asked to evaluate but are not given specific criteria on which to base your evaluation, this leaves you free to design your own evaluative agenda and choose the criteria you want for the evaluation. Thus, if you think that the judgment creates serious doctrinal problems, you may want to focus the evaluation on that. On the other hand, you may think that the real issue with the judgment is its practical impact and therefore focuson that instead. This section will have a 40% weight on the total mark. Further instructions given by my professor: Format of case citations for CJEU decisions: For decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and of the General Court), citations should use the European Case Law Identifier (ECLI), as used above for the Telefónica case. Where a reference In the European Court Reports (ECR) is available, this can be used as an alternative to the ECLI citation. Sources: You should be aware that, owing to the fact that the case is still fairly recent, relatively little has been published specifically on the Telefónica case itself. However, the academic literature on reviewable acts, in particular, should contain material that is likely to be relevant to the case note. References to Treaty Articles: You should be clear and consistent in your references to Treaty articles. It is recommended that, in principle, you should refer to the current version and numbering of the Treaties, that is to say the post-Lisbon version of the Treaties. You would, therefore, normally refer to Article 263 TFEU rather than Article 173 EEC or Article 230 EC. You should do so even when discussing cases or literature that pre-date the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty unless there is a particular reason why you specifically want to refer to the older version of the Article (for instance, because the wording of the Article has changed in relation to the issue you are discussing). In any event, you should ensure that it is clear which version you are referring to. You may use the abbreviation “TFEU” to refer to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The abbreviation “TEU” will be assumed to refer to the current version of the Treaty on the European Union unless you specifically indicate otherwise. Please follow these guidelines/advices strictly as they are crucial to achieve a high grade. Thank you very much and for any question do not hesitate to contact me. Use as many sources as you want, the important thing is that they are more than 4-5.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]