jump to navigation

spring 2016 archive (eu)

Week 14: April 11-15 Next week is our last week of classes for the semester as the Wednesday of the following week is deemed to be a Monday. Rather than beginning any new material I think it makes sense for us to focus next week on consolidating the knowledge you have been developing during the semester and applying it to the sort of questions I may ask on the final exam.

Here is a Free Movement of Goods Decision Tree

1. We will begin on Wednesday with the Spring 2010 exam . Initially we will focus on the hypothetical and then perhaps later we can discuss the first essay question (we haven’t read the Kadi decision although we did consider similar questions in the context of Opinion 2/13).

2. Then we will discuss the mid-semester writing assignment questions:
Question 1:
Arcadia is a Member State of the European Union.
Beata has been working as a risk assessment officer for Security Solutions, a company based in Arcadia which works exclusively for the Arcadian Defence Department (the government department responsible for the defence of the country against external threats).
Beata was ill for a long period of time and unable to work. When she was well enough to return to work from sick leave she still became tired easily. Security Solutions told her that they were terminating her employment on the basis that she was not capable of full time employment due to illness. Security Solutions said to Beata that Arcadian law allowed them to terminate employees who had missed a significant period of work (defined by the Arcadian Courts to be a period of over 6 months) due to illness.
Arcadia has not implemented Directive 2000/78 properly with respect to discrimination with respect to disability. The Court of Justice has held that sickness such as that suffered by Beata should be accommodated if possible under the provisions of Directive 2000/78.
The Disabilities Coalition of Arcadia wants to support Beata in her claim that her dismissal conflicted with EU law. Using the course materials identify the issues raised by these facts and suggest what arguments Beata and the Coalition can make under EU law to protect Beata’s rights.

Question 2:
In a speech in 2013, Lord Mance, a Justice of the UK Supreme Court said:
“Legal certainty is important… for all those affected by EU law… the general willingness of all Member States and their institutions to engage unreservedly in the development and implementation of EU law depends upon confidence that the outcome will be predictable: above all, that it will respect the EU legislators’ apparent intentions. It is not the Court of Justice’s role to act as a legislator…. The Court of Justice has with good reason itself stressed the virtues of legal effectiveness and certainty. The Court of Justice commonly sits as a court of first and last resort and the effects of its decisions are difficult to reverse or change. When changes involve Treaty interpretation, they even require Treaty amendment to achieve…. There have however been cases where certainty and predictability can be said not to have been achieved. A well-known example is the Court’s decision in Mangold v Rüdiger Helm CaseC-144/04.”
Using the course materials please write a critical assessment of this statement.

3. We will look at and discuss the Spring 2012 exam

4. Arcadia is a Member State of the EU. Emma is a laboratory technician employed by the Arcadian Environment Ministry.
(Fictitious) Directive 2014/555 (the Directive) provides that all overtime worked by laboratory technicians must be paid at no less than three times the normal hourly rate. The Directive also provides that laboratory technicians must receive health and safety training. An annex to the Directive sets out the details of the required training, which must include sessions covering all new handling techniques relating to toxic substances. The deadline for implementation of the Directive was 31 December 2015.
The (fictitious) Laboratory Technicians Act 1960 enacted by the Arcadian Legislature (the Act) provides that all overtime worked by laboratory technicians must be paid at no less than twice the normal hourly rate. The Act also provides that all laboratory technicians must receive health and safety training but does not specify the content of the training.
Emma does sometimes work overtime. When she does so she receives twice her normal hourly rate of pay in accordance with the terms of her contract of employment. Emma isn’t very happy about this as friends of hers who work as laboratory technicians in Ruritania (another EU Member State) are paid for their overtime at a rate of three times their normal hourly rate of pay. When Emma complained she was told that her overtime rate complies with the Act.
Last month, Emma came into contact with a toxic substance at work and, as a result, suffered respiratory problems. Although Emma has received health and safety training at the Environment Ministry the training has not included training in recently developed handling techniques for toxic substances. Emma believes that such training would have protected her from the health risk associated with the toxic substance.
What are Emma’s rights under EU law? What would her rights be if she were employed by a business which carried out environmental texts similar to those which the Ministry carries out?

5. The final exam will combine hypothetical and thematic essay type questions to test how well you can identify the legal issues raised by a set of facts and apply the relevant rules of EU law to those facts and how effectively you have been thinking through the issues raised by the materials we have studied. I will give you a choice of essay questions. We will think about what sorts of issues might make appropriate topics for such questions.

Have a good weekend.

April 10: Here is a link to the story about French farmers emptying Spanish wine from trucks.

Week 13: April 4-8 Next week we will finish Materials on the Law of the European Union Part 4: Free Movement of Goods and on Friday we can discuss the hypothetical question in my Spring 2010 exam .

Next Friday I also plan to have the course evaluation session.

Today, in discussing Keck, I mentioned the Court of Justice’s decision in the Scotch Whisky Association case (relating to a minimum price for alcohol) in December 2015 where the Court said:

As the Advocate General stated … the fact that the legislation at issue in the main proceedings prevents the lower cost price of imported products being reflected in the selling price to the consumer means, by itself, that that legislation is capable of hindering the access to the United Kingdom market of alcoholic drinks that are lawfully marketed in Member States other than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and constitutes therefore a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU

In addition to the materials you have in Chapter 4, this is another indication that the Court’s focus now seems to be directly on the market access issue and what seemed to be the relevant distinction in Keck between product rules and rules about selling arrangements may not be completely reliable.

Have a good weekend.

April 6: Here is a Free Movement of Goods Decision Tree you may find useful.

Week 12: March 28-April 1 We will continue to work through Materials on the Law of the European Union Part 4: Free Movement of Goods beginning with the Wine and Beer case. Please read to page 21 for Wednesday and to the end of the chapter for Friday.

After we have finished the material in this Chapter you should be able to think about the hypothetical question in my Spring 2010 exam . We can spend some time in class going over this at some point.

Have a good weekend.

Here is the mid-semester writing assignment (and here is the pdf version):

Please answer one of the following questions .

Question 1:
Arcadia is a Member State of the European Union.
Beata has been working as a risk assessment officer for Security Solutions, a company based in Arcadia which works exclusively for the Arcadian Defence Department (the government department responsible for the defence of the country against external threats).
Beata was ill for a long period of time and unable to work. When she was well enough to return to work from sick leave she still became tired easily. Security Solutions told her that they were terminating her employment on the basis that she was not capable of full time employment due to illness. Security Solutions said to Beata that Arcadian law allowed them to terminate employees who had missed a significant period of work (defined by the Arcadian Courts to be a period of over 6 months) due to illness.
Arcadia has not implemented Directive 2000/78 properly with respect to discrimination with respect to disability. The Court of Justice has held that sickness such as that suffered by Beata should be accommodated if possible under the provisions of Directive 2000/78.
The Disabilities Coalition of Arcadia wants to support Beata in her claim that her dismissal conflicted with EU law. Using the course materials identify the issues raised by these facts and suggest what arguments Beata and the Coalition can make under EU law to protect Beata’s rights.

Question 2:
In a speech in 2013, Lord Mance, a Justice of the UK Supreme Court said:

“Legal certainty is important… for all those affected by EU law… the general willingness of all Member States and their institutions to engage unreservedly in the development and implementation of EU law depends upon confidence that the outcome will be predictable: above all, that it will respect the EU legislators’ apparent intentions. It is not the Court of Justice’s role to act as a legislator…. The Court of Justice has with good reason itself stressed the virtues of legal effectiveness and certainty. The Court of Justice commonly sits as a court of first and last resort and the effects of its decisions are difficult to reverse or change. When changes involve Treaty interpretation, they even require Treaty amendment to achieve…. There have however been cases where certainty and predictability can be said not to have been achieved. A well-known example is the Court’s decision in Mangold v Rüdiger Helm CaseC-144/04.”

Using the course materials please write a critical assessment of this statement.

The deadline for submission of your paper is Monday March 28 March 31 at 4pm. Please deliver a copy of the paper marked with your assigned grading number AND NOT YOUR NAME to my assistant (Adoracion Carrillo whose desk is outside Room 381).
The paper should be typed and no more than 4 pages in length (at approximately 250 words per page).

Week 11: March 21-25 On Wednesday we will begin with the speech by Lady Justice Arden: International and European Law: A View from the Bench (October2015) and Fabbrini, Federico, After the OMT Case: The Supremacy of EU Law as the Guarantee of the Equality of the Member States (August 10, 2015). iCourts Working Paper Series, No. 29; University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2015-11. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2641800 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2641800.

Then we will move on to Materials on the Law of the European Union Part 4: Free Movement of Goods. Please read to page 12 for Wednesday and to page 29 for Friday.

As I said this morning I am extending the deadline for submission of the writing assignment to 4pm on March 31.

Week 10: March 14-18 On Wednesday March 16th we will have a visiting speaker: Csongor István Nagy is research chair and the leader of the Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group at the Center for Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, associate professor and the head of the Department of Private International Law at the University of Szeged, Faculty of Law. Furthermore, he is recurrent visiting professor at the Sapientia University of Transylvania (Romania) and at the Riga Graduate School of Law (Latvia). He is currently Fulbright visiting professor at Indiana University, Bloomington (under the joint sponsorship of the Hungarian Fulbright Commission & the Department of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University Bloomington).

On Friday March 18 we will finish Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 3 (Direct Effect and General Principles of EU Law) Please also read this speech by Lady Justice Arden: International and European Law: A View from the Bench (October2015). Please also read Fabbrini, Federico, After the OMT Case: The Supremacy of EU Law as the Guarantee of the Equality of the Member States (August 10, 2015). iCourts Working Paper Series, No. 29; University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2015-11. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2641800 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2641800.

Week 9: March 7-11 Spring Break. Have a great break.

After the break, on Wednesday March 16th we will have a visiting speaker: Csongor István Nagy is research chair and the leader of the Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group at the Center for Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, associate professor and the head of the Department of Private International Law at the University of Szeged, Faculty of Law. Furthermore, he is recurrent visiting professor at the Sapientia University of Transylvania (Romania) and at the Riga Graduate School of Law (Latvia). He is currently Fulbright visiting professor at Indiana University, Bloomington (under the joint sponsorship of the Hungarian Fulbright Commission & the Department of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University Bloomington).

On Friday of that week we will finish Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 3 (Direct Effect and General Principles of EU Law) Please also read this speech by Lady Justice Arden: International and European Law: A View from the Bench (October2015). I plan to assign another reading focusing on the reaction of national courts to the Court of Justice’s jurisprudence.

Week 8: February 29-March 4 Next week we will work through the rest of Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 3 (Direct Effect and General Principles of EU Law). For Wednesday please read to page 53 and for Friday to the end of the materials packet. And then please read this speech by Lady Justice Arden: International and European Law: A View from the Bench (October2015).

Here is the mid-semester writing assignment (and here is the pdf version):

Please answer one of the following questions .

Question 1:
Arcadia is a Member State of the European Union.
Beata has been working as a risk assessment officer for Security Solutions, a company based in Arcadia which works exclusively for the Arcadian Defence Department (the government department responsible for the defence of the country against external threats).
Beata was ill for a long period of time and unable to work. When she was well enough to return to work from sick leave she still became tired easily. Security Solutions told her that they were terminating her employment on the basis that she was not capable of full time employment due to illness. Security Solutions said to Beata that Arcadian law allowed them to terminate employees who had missed a significant period of work (defined by the Arcadian Courts to be a period of over 6 months) due to illness.
Arcadia has not implemented Directive 2000/78 properly with respect to discrimination with respect to disability. The Court of Justice has held that sickness such as that suffered by Beata should be accommodated if possible under the provisions of Directive 2000/78.
The Disabilities Coalition of Arcadia wants to support Beata in her claim that her dismissal conflicted with EU law. Using the course materials identify the issues raised by these facts and suggest what arguments Beata and the Coalition can make under EU law to protect Beata’s rights.

Question 2:
In a speech in 2013, Lord Mance, a Justice of the UK Supreme Court said:

“Legal certainty is important… for all those affected by EU law… the general willingness of all Member States and their institutions to engage unreservedly in the development and implementation of EU law depends upon confidence that the outcome will be predictable: above all, that it will respect the EU legislators’ apparent intentions. It is not the Court of Justice’s role to act as a legislator…. The Court of Justice has with good reason itself stressed the virtues of legal effectiveness and certainty. The Court of Justice commonly sits as a court of first and last resort and the effects of its decisions are difficult to reverse or change. When changes involve Treaty interpretation, they even require Treaty amendment to achieve…. There have however been cases where certainty and predictability can be said not to have been achieved. A well-known example is the Court’s decision in Mangold v Rüdiger Helm CaseC-144/04.”

Using the course materials please write a critical assessment of this statement.

The deadline for submission of your paper is Monday March 28 at 4pm. Please deliver a copy of the paper marked with your assigned grading number AND NOT YOUR NAME to my assistant (Adoracion Carrillo whose desk is outside Room 381).
The paper should be typed and no more than 4 pages in length (at approximately 250 words per page).

Have a good weekend!

On Wednesday March 16th we will have a visiting speaker: Csongor István Nagy is research chair and the leader of the Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group at the Center for Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, associate professor and the head of the Department of Private International Law at the University of Szeged, Faculty of Law. Furthermore, he is recurrent visiting professor at the Sapientia University of Transylvania (Romania) and at the Riga Graduate School of Law (Latvia). He is currently Fulbright visiting professor at Indiana University, Bloomington (under the joint sponsorship of the Hungarian Fulbright Commission & the Department of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University Bloomington).

Week 7: February 22-26 On Wednesday we will begin with the Maribel Dominguez case in
Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 2 (EU Law Within National Legal Systems) and please also read Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ No. L 303/16 (Dec. 2, 2000). This is the directive at issue in two of the cases we will be looking at in Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 3 (Direct Effect and General Principles of EU Law). In addition to the directive please read to the top of page 9 of this document for Wednesday. For Friday please read to page 37.

When we have read other Court of Justice decisions, including Kobler and TDM you haven’t had much background in the substantive areas of law we have been dealing with. So when you read about Marshall you didn’t know much about equal treatment. Now what we will be doing is beginning by looking at the rules the EU has set out in a directive with respect to a particular set of issues. You will learn something about what a directive looks like as well as about the effect the Court says it has in the legal systems of the Member States.

Week 6: February 15-19 We are still working through Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 2 (EU Law Within National Legal Systems). On Wednesday we will begin with any questions you may have on indirect effect. On this subject I wrote up some Notes on directives and indirect effects which I hope you may find helpful. Then we will move on to think about Francovich damages actions. So please read to page 33 for Wednesday and page 37 for Friday’s class. Remember that because of the 3rd DCA visit on Friday February 19th our class that day has been rescheduled to 2.00 pm in Room F108.

After we have finished with Part 2 of the materials we will look at the way in which general principles of EU law can interact with directives to produce a greater effect within the law of the Member States than either the general principle or the directive would alone. We will read Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ No. L 303/16 (Dec. 2, 2000) (another directive adopted in 2000 (which I will not require you to read) prohibits discrimination in a range of contexts including education and access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public, including housing) and some case law. The Commission proposed to amend the equal treatment directive in 2008 but the proposal ran into some opposition.

I moved the comment which previously appeared on this page to the archive so it appears as a response to the question it addressed. If you would like to comment on any of the issues raised in the materials you are welcome to do so here.

February 15: Here are Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 3 (Direct Effect and General Principles of EU Law).

Week 5: February 8-12 Next week we will continue working on Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 2 (EU Law Within National Legal Systems). We will work through this material relatively slowly. So, please prepare to page 21 for Wednesday (although I think it is likely that we don’t get to or don;’t get too far with the directives material on Wednesday). I expect it will take us a while to think through the horizontal and vertical direct effect issues but please read to page 33 for Friday.

In thinking about direct effect, think about what the legal criteria are for a Treaty provision to produce direct effects. Is it clear what the criteria are? Have they changed over time?

McCulloch v Maryland was mentioned in class this week. Compare this passage from that case to the excerpt from Costa in your materials (the European Community is characterized in a similar way (limited powers but supreme within its sphere of action) but not on the basis of any express reference in the Treaty to supremacy) :

If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this — that the Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result necessarily from its nature. It is the Government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all. Though any one State may be willing to control its operations, no State is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, decided it by saying, “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof,” “shall be the supreme law of the land,” and by requiring that the members of the State legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the States shall take the oath of fidelity to it. The Government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land, “anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Because of the 3rd DCA visit on Friday February 19th our class that day has been rescheduled to 2.00 pm in Room F108.

Week 4: February 1-5 So far we have been learning some background information about the EU- about its structure and institutions and now we are beginning to learn about its legal system, beginning with an outline of the features and we will gradually learn more detail about how EU law works. It’s probably all a bit confusing so far. The EU’s website has some general background information about the EU which you may find useful (this is not required reading) and the EU has a presence on youtube. For example, here is a link to an EU video on Corporate Tax Avoidance. And here is another one:

On Wednesday next week we will discuss Opinion 2/13 which begins at page 80 of the first materials packet (and read Stefan Reitemeyer & Benedikt Pirker, Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice on Access of the EU to the ECHR — One step ahead and two steps back) and the rest of that packet.

The case allows us to think about how the EU and EU law fits within the system of international law. The EU Member States are all parties to the European Convention on Human Rights already and they are also all members of the United Nations. Article 103 of the UN Charter provides:

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail

From the perspective of the UN, human rights guaranteed by the UN Charter should be given effect by UN Members where they conflict with obligations under other treaties (such as the European Convention or the EU Treaties or a trade agreement). Article 53 of the European Convention co-ordinates the Convention rights with rights under the UN Charter:

Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a party

The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has a similar provision in Article 53:

Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised, in their respective fields of application, by Union law and international law and by international agreements to which the Union or all the Member States are party, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and by the Member States’ constitutions.

And under Art 52(3) of the EU Charter EU law ,may provide more extensive protection of human rights than the European Convention does. On the other hand the EU is mostly about market integration rather than about human rights.

EU law has the characteristic of supremacy as we will see and the Member States are bound to apply EU law domestically (the rules about direct effect and state liability should ensure this). The European Court of Human Rights does not have the same sort of system for ensuring that states comply with its decisions.

So why is the Court of Justice so concerned about EU accession to the European Convention?

Comment: O. Jean Strickland – February 3, 2016: A thought about the question of why the Court of Justice is concerned about EU accession to the European Convention:
Apart from asserting their supremacy, human rights issues may affect and become intertwined with EU Internal Market issues. The human rights issues involved in the refugee crisis, for example, may have significant consequences to the availability and price of goods and services. While the convention’s unilateral focus on promoting human rights is admirable and an ideal to which all should subscribe, there may be a need for balancing the tension between human rights and the economic well being sought for all through the Internal Market. The EU Court of Justice would rightly want to ensure the clarity of their supremacy in deciding the outcome of such balancing.

On Friday next week we will begin to focus on Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 2 (EU Law Within National Legal Systems). Please read to page 21 for Friday’s class.

Week 3: January 25-29 We didn’t get as far as I had imagined this time last week (but we are pretty much in line with coverage the last time I taught this class). Next week we will carry on working through this first set of materials. We began today to think about the extent to which the different institutions are supranational or intergovernmental. Independence from the national governments is a critical component of the analysis here. We also want to think about the institutions in terms of where the executive, legislative and judicial powers are located (how an idea of separation of powers plays out in the EU context). On Wednesday we will think about Better Regulation (why did I include this material in the packet? (I know why I did – this is a question to encourage you to reflect on how this material might change how we think about the EU) and the Barroso and Juncker speeches (for example, do they have the same ideas about their roles or not? note that in 2012 the EU was dealing with crises also – does this recognition change how we think about the current crises?). And we should be able to begin to think about the EU courts so please read to page 80 for Wednesday (we won’t probably get there). Then we will discuss Opinion 2/13 which begins at page 80 and the rest of this packet. Before reading Opinion 2/13 please read Stefan Reitemeyer & Benedikt Pirker, Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice on Access of the EU to the ECHR — One step ahead and two steps back.

Week 2: January 19-22. This week we will be working through Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 1. On Wednesday we will begin by focusing on the excerpt from the Commission’s Rule of Law Communication which begins on page 17, in particular the section in the middle of page 18 setting out why the Rule of Law is so important in the EU. As I mentioned this issue is particularly salient right now because of the situation of Poland. We will then discuss the materials which address the internal market provision of the Treaty (Art. 114 TFEU) as the legal basis for EU legislative measures. If there is time we will begin to discuss the institutions. Please read to the middle of page 44 for Wednesday. Then for Friday please read to page 80.

If this plan works out then the following week we will discuss Opinion 2/13 which begins at page 80 and the rest of this packet. Before reading Opinion 2/13 please read Stefan Reitemeyer & Benedikt Pirker, Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice on Access of the EU to the ECHR — One step ahead and two steps back.

January 14: Please note that the room has changed from F402 to F108.

Materials for the class will be available on this blog.

Here are the EU Class Policies 2016

For the first class on Wednesday January 13, please read:
1. EU Commission Report on the ‘Europe for Citizens’ Programme 2007-2013, COM(2015) 652 final, Dec. 16, 2015
2. EU Commission, Communication: Managing the Refugee Crisis: State of Play of the Implementation of the Priority Actions under the European Agenda on Migration, COM(2015) 510 final, Oct. 14, 2015

These two documents are published by the EU Commission, which is the EU institution responsible for making policy proposals, and for administration of EU policy. The first document describes a range of activities relating to the idea of EU citizenship: citizens of EU Member States are also citizens of the EU. The second document provides some information on the EU’s refugee “crisis,” one of a number of crises the EU has been facing in recent years which tends to disrupt the aim of EU states working together.

Although the purpose of the class is to develop an understanding of how EU law operates, I think it is also useful to develop a sense of the range of policy issues the EU deals with, and some of the challenges it faces. For example, see this news article: Is the Schengen dream of Europe without borders becoming a thing of the past?.

After Tuesday’s class we will begin to focus on: Materials on the Law of the European Union: Part 1.
[January 13: As requested, I have asked the Copy Center to produce copies of this materials packet.]

It will take a while to work through this material. In addition, before reading Opinion 2/13 which begins at page 80 please read Stefan Reitemeyer & Benedikt Pirker, Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice on Access of the EU to the ECHR — One step ahead and two steps back.

For class on Friday January 15 please read to page 32 of these materials (please be aware that we may not get this far in class).

Moved to this page on January 9, 2016:
The first chapter of materials for the class, focusing on an introduction to the EU and to EU law, will be available on this page by close of business on Friday January 8th, and I will assign some reading from that chapter for the class on Friday January 15.
[Update January 8, 5.00pm: there is a delay in posting the materials I promised by right about now. I will get them up as soon as I can].