EU law worksheet with answers

Where is the Court of Justice of the European Union based?

1. AThe Hague
2. BStrasbourg
3. CBrussels
4. DLuxembourg

Which are the four freedoms of the EU internal market?

1. AFree education, health care, housing and transport
2. BFreedom of speech, religion, assembly and press
3. CFree movement of goods, persons, services and capital
4. DFree trade, free elections, free media and free courts

The European Ombudsman investigates complaints about:

1. AMaladministration by EU institutions and bodies
2. BCrimes committed by EU citizens
3. CHuman rights violations by member states
4. DBreaches of EU law by private companies

In Simmenthal (1978), the Court of Justice held that a national court faced with a national law conflicting with EU law must:

1. AAsk the national parliament to amend the law first
2. BApply the national law if it was adopted later
3. CSet the national law aside of its own motion, without waiting for it to be repealed
4. DWait for the national constitutional court to annul the law before it can disapply it

The Cassis de Dijon judgment introduced:

1. AState liability
2. BThe rule that indistinctly applicable measures can be justified only on the grounds listed exhaustively in Article 36 TFEU
3. CEU citizenship
4. DMutual recognition and mandatory requirements as justifications for indistinctly applicable measures

Under the Lisbon voting rules, a blocking minority in the Council must include at least:

1. AFour member states
2. BTwo member states
3. CTen member states
4. DHalf of the member states

In Wightman (2018), the Court of Justice held that a member state that has notified its intention to withdraw under Article 50 TEU:

1. AMay revoke the notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional way, before withdrawal takes effect
2. BCan revoke it only with the unanimous consent of the other member states
3. CCan revoke it only after the withdrawal agreement enters into force
4. DCannot revoke the notification under any circumstances

In Commission v Italy (trailers, 2009), an Italian ban on motorcycles towing trailers was held to be:

1. AA measure having equivalent effect, because it hindered access to the market for the product
2. BOutside Article 34 because it applied equally to domestic and imported motorcycles and trailers alike
3. CA customs duty contrary to Article 30
4. DA selling arrangement outside Article 34