‘Light Weapons’ and the Dynamics of Art 47 EU – The EC's Armoury of Ever Expanding Competences
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00725.x |
| Published date | 01 November 2008 |
| Date | 01 November 2008 |
Regulation 6(2)(b), but that the approach should have been to emphasise the
exclusion from the core exemption of incidental terms: an approach indicated in
First National Bank.
CONCLUSION
Any consideration of the Bulletins and Reports of the OFT on the operation of
UTCCR shows that the Regulations have had a very signi¢cant impact on the
fairness of the standard terms encountered by consumers. However, for that
impact to continue,the scope of the ‘core exemption’must be keptwithin narrow
bounds.As the House of Lords madeclear in the First NationalBank case, a narrow
approach mustbe taken to the core exemption if the purpose of the Regulations is
not to be frustrated. To a very large extent, however, theHouse of Lords left open
how that was tobe achieved.The Abbey National case providesa signi¢cantoppor-
tunity for clari¢cation, particularly as the interests involved may well ensure that
appeals will be taken to their fullest extent. At ¢rst instance the right conclusion
would seemto have been reached on the status of the Relevant Charges as falling
outside the core exemption. However, it can be contended that the right result as
to the scope of Regulation 6(2)(b) was reached but for the wrong reasons, with
the judge unhelpfully emphasizing the references in Regulation 6(2)(b) to‘ade-
quacy’ and ‘goods and services’. The better approach can be argued to be to
emphasize the point whichwas made in First National Bank that ‘incidental terms’
fall outside the core exemption and that is how the Relevant Charges would be
perceived by the parties.
‘LightWeapons’ and the Dynamics of Art 47 EU ^ The
EC’s Armoury of Ever Expanding Competences
Ester Herlin-Karnell
n
This case note analysesthe constitutional scopeof the recent Luxembourg ruling of Lightweapons
and small arms,Case 91/05,Commission v Council delivered on 20May 2008 (Grand Chamber).
INTRODUCTION
The judgment under consideration here, Case 91/05, Commission vCouncil, Small
Arms and LightWeapons (LightWeapons), raises a number of interesting yet delicate
questions. In this case, the Court of Justice once again found the weakness, or
n
Somerville College, University of Oxford.Thanks to the anonymousreferees for veryhelpful com-
ments.Thanks also to Chloe Mattison for help with proof-reading.The usual disclaimer applies.
‘LightWeapons’ and the Dynamics of Art 47 EU
998 r2008 The Author.Journal Compilation r2008 The Modern Law Review Limited.
(2008) 71(6) 987^1014
To continue reading
Request your trial