This chapter considers the circumstances when EU law provisions can be invoked in national courts. The doctrine of direct effect enables an EU law provision to be invoked in a national court when it grants entitlements to individual parties in a sufficiently precise way. Directly effective provisions of the EU Treaties and Regulations can be invoked against both the State and private actors. By contrast, directly effective provisions of Directives can only be invoked against the State. The doctrine of indirect effects requires any national law or procedure to be interpreted so far as possible to comply with all EU law. However, this cannot be done if the interpretation would contradict the wording of the national law or aggravate criminal liability. The doctrine of State liability allows individuals to sue the State for damages for breach of an EU law which grants them individual rights in a number of circumstances: if the State has failed to transpose a Directive, it has not complied with an order of the Court of Justice, it has failed to follow settled case law of that court or it breaches a clear provision of EU law.

This chapter uses medieval chronicles and annals to explore how river disasters were understood and remembered, and how people chose to tell stories about rivers. A focus on floods brings up issues of risk and resilience, and how floods were interpreted by medieval people. The chapter also focuses on how rivers are connected to other memorable and historic events and why they were such powerful stories. The chapter then turns to the ways that rivers were incorporated into monastic memory and to stories of foundation, and how holy sites were seen as revealed by God and the saints. The chapter ends with a case study focused on St. Sturm and the monastery of Fulda, with a focus on the role of rivers in the house’s history.

When in 1010 the monks of Reichenau created this image, part of the book now known as the Bamberg Apocalypse, they may well have thought they were preparing for the end of the world. The previous century saw the attacks of the Vikings and the rise of powerful minor landlords and nobles in the political void left by the declining Carolingian state. Depending on your historical point of view, by 1000, power had either devolved into the hands of petty warlords or had been reclaimed by local leaders. In either case, the uniformity of economic, ecclesiastical, administrative, and jurisdictional practices that the Carolingians had heavily invested in was transforming again into locally defined ones. This led to a series of local and regional conflicts over the exercise of power and authority, which eventually led to open strife.

EU fundamental rights are autonomous EU rights but are founded on two sources: the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR) and general principles of law. The EUCFR has the same legal status as the Treaties, and comprises a wide array of civil, economic, ecological, political and social rights. General principles of law comprise all the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights as well as a number of further principles: notably, equal treatment, legitimate expectations, the proportionality and precautionary principles, and general rights of defence. EU fundamental rights can be invoked to strike down EU measures but, more frequently, they guide interpretation of these measures. They can only be invoked against Member States when these implement EU law. This will be so when a national measure implements or has the same objectives as an EU law, is authorised by an EU law, or is invoked as an exception to an EU law. A number of general principles of EU law can also be invoked against private parties, notably the prohibition on discrimination, the right to effective judicial protection and the right to annual leave.

Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that measures equivalent to a quantitative restriction shall be prohibited. The case law of the European Court of Justice interpreting this has addressed product standards, selling arrangements and all other kinds of national measures that might tend to hinder trade or affect consumer behaviour and thereby restrict imports. Relying on judge-made ideas such as mutual recognition and mandatory requirements, the Court has put the informed consumer at the heart of the market, at the expense of the paternalistic state. On the other hand, it recognises the need to restrict free movement where legitimate public interests are at stake, with the proportionality of such restrictive measures being the main question in most cases.

The chapter considers the powers of the central administrative and legislative institutions. The Commission comprises a college of twenty-seven Commissioners appointed for five years. It has four central types of power. It can adopt quasi-legislation. It proposes laws, policies and the budget. It administers EU policies. Finally, it has powers to police the observance of EU law. The Council of Ministers, comprised of national ministers, has the final power of decision over almost all fields of EU law. It votes either by unanimity or by Qualified Majority, where fifteen States representing 65 per cent of the Union population must vote for a measure. The European Council comprises the Heads of Government. Its central role is to provide political direction for the other EU Institutions. The European Parliament comprises 705 directly elected representatives. Depending upon the field, it has the power of veto over legislation, has to assent to it or must be consulted over it. The Parliament also has significant powers to hold the other EU Institutions to account. This chapter concludes by examining the circumstances when individuals can seek disclosure of documents from the EU Institutions.

This chapter considers relations between the European Union and other European States. The European Economic Area establishes something close to a single market, with non-EU States transposing swathes of EU law into their national law. A customs union with Turkey in non-agricultural goods requires Turkey to align its laws with EU laws relating to external trade and free movement of goods. A hybrid regime exists with the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland aligns its external trade and free movement of goods law with EU law. A free trade agreement exists for the rest of the United Kingdom which abolishes tariffs on movement of goods but allows regulatory barriers. A free trade agreement also operates with Ukraine under which it aligns its laws with EU law in free movement of goods, most of free movement for services, environmental, labour and competition law. A limited free trade agreement exists with Switzerland, alongside a number of agreements in which Switzerland aligns its laws with EU law in return for access to the EU market or territory. The chapter also considers the ‘Brussels effect’ under which non-EU States and industries voluntarily adopt EU law to access the EU market.

The Member States of the European Union have created an internal market where movement of goods, services, persons and capital should be as easy across borders as it is within a single Member State. This is achieved by Treaty Articles which prohibit restrictions on free movement and discrimination, and by harmonisation. The process of harmonisation is complex and contested because it goes to the heart of how much power the EU has, and how much uniformity between Member States is required. The creation of common standards, although done by legislation, is a technocratic process in which it is sometimes claimed that non-scientific interests such as culture and identity are not adequately represented. As well as this, a well-functioning internal market has side-effects, such as regulatory competition, which put pressure on national standards and may undermine national preferences.

Here the artist has drawn a crowded and vivid riverscape, teeming with fish and serpents and dragons. The riverbanks are full of vegetation; animals, birds, and men stand alongside the river, looking up to God in the heavens. The animals include mundane cattle and deer alongside more spectacular elephants and lions. The imagined worlds of Biblical creation could both intersect and run counter to the lived worlds of the European lived environments.

This chapter examines the countryside of late antique southern Gaul as a context for the development of popular culture at this time, making use of archaeological as well as literary evidence. It covers Provence, with a particular focus on the territorium of the city of Arles, although areas of western Languedoc are also considered due to the exceptional archaeological data available. Key themes and questions arising from recent scholarship are introduced to shape the discussion that follows before the landscape of the region is introduced. The inhabitants of the region are discussed next, in terms of their social and legal status, while the following section considers developments in settlement and social organisation, including the fate of the villa. A detailed look at livelihoods and patterns of productive activity follows. The final section looks at religious structures and landscapes, including the impact of the church in the late antique countryside.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides for free movement of the factors of production, but also for derogations from free movement where necessary to protect important interests such as public policy, public security and public health. These have been broadened out by the Court of Justice to include other public interest objectives, including the environment and consumer protection, which can also be relied on under certain conditions. All these derogations and protections are to be applied subject to certain conditions – they must be restrictively interpreted, non-discriminatory, procedurally fair and applied in a proportionate and consistent way. Alongside these, there are specific exceptions applying to occupations, excluding public service and official authority from the scope of Articles 45, 49 and 56 TFEU.

The aims of EU competition law are contested. The mainstream view that competition law prohibits conduct that harms consumer welfare leads to discussion about the proper economic approach to apply. EU competition law has often been applied in ways that address other public policy considerations, presently focusing on promoting digital markets and a green agenda. The procedures to apply competition law must safeguard the fundamental rights of undertakings and the Court of Justice has helped shape the degree of protection as well as the right to a robust judicial review of Commission decisions. Since 2004, national competition authorities have been tasked with applying EU competition law. Cooperation among national authorities and the Commission is facilitated by the European Competition Network and the ECN+ Directive has conferred on each national competition authorities the same enforcement powers that the Commission enjoys. Each national authority focuses on cases that affect its jurisdiction, the Commission retaining responsibility for cross-border infringements. Private enforcement has been facilitated by the EU legislature and a system of collective redress by which consumers secure compensation is emerging slowly in some jurisdictions.

This chapter addresses the legal dimensions of the European Union’s response to the climate change crisis. It introduces the EU’s climate governance strategy for 2030 and 2050, and reviews the key Regulations, Directives and legislative proposals adopted in its pursuit, including the European Climate Law, the Emissions Trading Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive and the proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism Regulation. The chapter discusses the position of the EU both as a key contributor to and a subject of international climate change law, and considers the relation between climate change as a governance challenge and the general principles of EU law, with a focus on solidarity, transparency and public participation. The chapter also examines the regulatory and enforcement strategies that characterise EU climate change law. To this end, the EU Emissions Trading System is examined as an example of the EU approach to market-based regulation, and the Governance Regulation demonstrates the EU’s reliance on ‘soft’, proceduralised enforcement in the climate policy sphere. The chapter’s final section illustrates the difficulty of coherent climate change decision-making, as EU authorities must reconcile internal market goals with energy security demands, sustainability concerns and global fairness concerns.

Modern capitalism and globalisation rely on the free movement of capital across borders. Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is unusual in applying not just to movement between Member States, but also to capital movements between Member States and third countries. It makes all measures which deter foreign investment unlawful, unless they can be shown to serve a public interest aim and be proportionate. Those principles have been applied to rules on land ownership, taxation and also to golden shares: a mechanism by which governments retain an influence over privatised strategic industries. That influence, because it serves the public interest and not profit, is considered by the Court of Justice likely to deter investors. The implicit view that any constraints on companies which hinder their profit-making are prima facie contrary to Article 63 is controversial. On the other hand, the Treaty also recognises the need for many restrictions on free movement of capital, to protect the cohesion of tax systems, or as part of sanctions or measures against money laundering.