Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T14:41:21.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The CJEU Holds that EU Legislation to Tighten Gun Control is Lawful

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2020

Frances C NWADIKE Open the ORCID record for Frances C NWADIKE [Opens in a new window]
Frances C NWADIKE*
Affiliation:
Doctoral Researcher at Newcastle University, UK; email: chisomaganwadike@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Commentaries
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 177 - 182
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons of 18 November 2015 (COM(2015) 750).

2 Opinion of AG Sharpston in Case C-482/17, Czech Republic v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2019:321, para 55.

3 Case C-376/98, Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2000:544, para 59.

4 Case C-547/14, Philip Morris Brands SARL and Others v Secretary of State for Health, ECLI:EU:C:2016:325, paras 57–60. See also A Cuyvers, “The Legal Framework of the EU” in E Ugirashebuja et al (eds), East African Community Law: Institutional, Substantive and Comparative EU Aspects (Brill 2017) p 121.

5 Philip Morris Brands, ibid, paras 57–60.

6 Opinion of AG Sharpston, supra, note 2, para 68.

7 Case C-482/17, Czech Republic v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1035, para 39.

8 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13, Art 5(4). See also W Sauter, “Proportionality in EU law: a balancing act?” TILEC Discussion Paper, (2013) TILEC Discussion Paper No 2013-003, p 29.

9 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making [2016] OJ L123/1.

10 Opinion of AG Sharpston, supra, note 2, para 90.

11 ibid, paras 100–101.

12 Czech Republic v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, supra, note 7, para 84.

13 ibid, para 85.

14 European Commission, “Impact Assessment” <ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/impact-assessments_en> (last accessed 2 January 2020).

15 Case C-147/13, Kingdom of Spain v Council of European Union, ECLI:EU:C:2015:299, para 79.

16 Council Directive 2017/853 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons [2017] OJ L137/22.

17 Opinion of AG Sharpston, supra, note 2, para 126.

18 Czech Republic v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, supra, note 7, para 150.

19 Opinion of AG Sharpston, supra, note 2, paras 128–130.

20 Case C-545/11, Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle eG v Landrat des Landkreises Oder-Spree, ECLI:EU:C:2013:169, para 24.

21 ibid, para 26.

22 Czech Republic v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, supra, note 7, para 157.

23 Case C-127/07, Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others v Premier Minister and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2008:728, para 23.

24 Under this practice, males between 20 and 30 years of age serve in the army for three months, and are allowed to keep a firearm after their service.

25 Opinion of AG Sharpston, supra, note 2, paras 139–140.

26 Czech Republic v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, supra, note 7, para 167.

27 Société Arcelor, supra, note 23, para 26.

28 ibid, para 47.

29 Opinion of AG Sharpston, supra, note 2, para 138.