Student guide: how to read EU law cases quicker
By Egle Dagilyte, Senior Lecturer in Law
Many law students are daunted when they see long reading lists for each seminar/tutorial,
especially if they are in the first or second year of their degrees. However, reading judgments of the
Court of Justice or of the General Court is often easier than those delivered by English courts. As
the EU courts take one majority decision (there are no dissenting opinions of individual judges), the
outcome is clear and stated at the end of each judgment in bold font. Furthermore, if one knows
where and what to look for, reading EU law cases does not have to be too time-consuming.
So what is a generic structure of most EU judgments? They have the following parts:
1. Case number: Letter C indicates that the judgment is from the Court of Justice (C-73/08); letter
T indicates that the judgment is from the General Court (T-545/11). The numbers after forwardslash ‘/’ indicate the year in which the case was registered before the Court (2008; 2011). The
numbers before forward-slash ‘/’ indicate the numeric order of the case registered during that
specific year. Sometimes cases are joined together, especially if their facts are similar (e.g.
Joined Cases C-585/08 and C-144/09). Note that case numbers prior to 1989 do not include
letters at all; this is because the Court of First Instance was introduced by the Single European
Act 1987, hence there was no need until then to distinguish the origin of cases.
2. Parties: A v B. Sometimes can be multiple (A, C, D v B).
3. Summary: newer judgments include summary of the most important parts of reasoning, with the
reference to the specific paragraphs where it can be found. You will still need to read the facts of
the case and the questions raised first, in order to understand what the summary means. For
this reason, it is best to skim through the summary, or read it in the end.
4. Legal framework: this explains the law that relates to the questions raised. Most of the time this
part outlines EU law provisions (Treaty articles, secondary legislation) and national law.
However, this may also include international law (e.g. international Treaties that the Union is a
party to).
5. Grounds, or the facts of the case; they can also be called ‘the actions in the main proceedings.’
These are very important, as they help to understand why the case started, who is taking action
and what kind of legal proceedings they have followed (e.g. preliminary ruling, enforcement
action by the Commission, etc).
6. The questions: very important part of the judgment. They normally follow straight after the facts
and are outlined very clearly (in numbers).
7. The reasoning: very important part of the judgment. This is where European courts state the
answers to the questions. Normally, each answer is provided directly under the heading, which
is the question. Sometimes European courts join questions or decide that there is no need to
address a certain question, based on the answers to the previous questions.
8. Decision on costs: not that important for the purposes of law.
9. Operative part (the answers): the most important part of the judgment, where the CJEU gives
clear short answers to the questions posed.
Note that contemporary judgments have numbered paragraphs, which makes it easy to reference
certain points of law made. Unfortunately, paragraph numbers were not the norm for early
judgments of the Court of Justice, including Van Gend en Loos and Costa v ENEL. For more
information on how to locate and cite EU law cases, see the guides by the University of Oxford, and
Cardiff University. More extensive guides are available from Georgetown University and Columbia
University. However, the best explanation - in my view - about referencing EU law cases is found in
Leiden Law School’s ‘Guide to doing research in EU law’ (see pages 3-4). Note, though, that it
needs updating to reflect the Lisbon Treaty changes (Treaty Article numbers etc).
Let us now take an example case to see how the generic structure is reflected. We will firstly have
a look at a case started before the introduction of the Court of First Instance: Case 186/87 Ian
William Cowan v Trésor public [1989] ECR 195. This is a case on the freedom to provide services.
1. Case number: 186/87.
2. Summary: “The prohibition of discrimination laid down in particular in Article 7 of the EEC Treaty
must be interpreted as meaning that in respect of persons whose freedom to travel to a Member
State, in particular as recipients of services, is guaranteed by Community law that State may not
make the award of State compensation for harm caused in that State to the victim of an assault
resulting in physical injury subject to the condition that he hold a residence permit or be a
national of a country which has entered into a reciprocal agreement with that Member State.”
3. Parties: Ian William Cowan v Trésor public.
4. Legal framework: not included.
5. Grounds (facts): paragraphs 1-5.
6. The questions: paragraph 6 raises only one question: "Are the provisions of Article 706-15 of
the code de procédure pénale, which governs cases where a foreign national who is the victim
of an offence in France may obtain compensation from the French State, compatible with the
prohibition of discrimination contained inter alia in Article 7 of the EEC Treaty?"
7. The reasoning: the Court of Justice answered this question in two stages. Firstly, it looked at
the content of the prohibition of discrimination (paragraphs10-13); secondly, at the scope of the
prohibition of discrimination (paragraphs 14-19). Finally, it arrived to an answer (paragraph 20).
8. Decision on costs: paragraph 21.
9. Operative part (the answers): features in the end of the judgment (no paragraph number).
What about a case example post 1989? Let’s have a look at the case that relates to Member State
liability: Case C-224/01 Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich [2003] ECR I-10239.
1. Case number: C-224/01.
2. Summary: This is quite long – see the beginning.
3. Parties: Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich.
4. Legal framework: paragraphs 3-4.
5. Grounds (facts): paragraphs 1-2 and 5-13.
6. The questions: five questions were set out in paragraph 14.
7. The reasoning: first and second questions answered in paragraphs 30-50 (principle of State
liability) and 51-59 (conditions governing State liability); third question answered in paragraphs
70-88; fourth and fifth questions answered in paragraphs 102-103 (the rule of law infringed,
which must confer rights on individuals), 104-126 (the sufficiently serious nature of the breach).
8. Decision on costs: paragraph 127.
9. Operative part (the answers): features in the end of the judgment (no paragraph number).
I hope you found this guide useful. If you have any comments or feedback on how to improve it,
please email me at Egle.Dagilyte [at] bucks.ac.uk