Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Functions and Types of Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Individual Rights in EU Law

  • 757 Accesses

Abstract

Given that the notion of rights is flexible, a definite ‘taxonomy’ of rights can hardly be made. This is true of any notion of protected interests as they are found under national laws. Moreover, the complexity—how rights can be general or specific; claimable against the European Union, Member States or individuals; and how some are negative (freedoms) and others positive (claims)—makes it, as scholars have already noted in the context of Union law rights, ‘difficult to detect a common thread in all rights discourses–fundamental rights, civic rights, citizenship rights, ordinary (Hohfeldian) rights from contract or legislation’. Neither is it necessary, as there are no legal consequences to be drawn from a categorization of individual Union law rights as such. But it may prove useful to illustrate precisely the diversity and plurality, by providing a brief typology including at least some groups of rights. Before doing so, some remarks should be made on how different types of rights serve slightly different roles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bengoetxea (2012), p. 740.

  2. 2.

    Cf., for a slightly different typology, Reich (1998); and de Búrca (1996).

  3. 3.

    Cf., e.g. Aalto (2011), p. 158.

  4. 4.

    Cf. Sect. 11.1.1.

  5. 5.

    Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Council Directive 87/164/EEC of 2 March 1987 (OJ 1987 L 66, p. 11). Cf., now, Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).

  6. 6.

    Cf., e.g., von Bar and Clive (2009), pp. 3418–3422.

  7. 7.

    van Dam (2013), p. 167.

  8. 8.

    C-282/05 P Holcim [2007] ECR I-2941, para 47.

  9. 9.

    Case C-440/07 P Schneider Electric [2009] ECR I-6413, para 160.

  10. 10.

    Case C-611/12 P Giordano [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 14 October 2014) (OJ 2014 C 462, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2282), para 44.

  11. 11.

    Case C-470/03 AGM-COSMET [2007] ECR 1-2749, para 78.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Joined Cases 169/83 and 136/84 Leussink [1986] ECR 2801; and Case C-308/87 Grifoni [1994] ECR I-34.

  13. 13.

    Case T-19/07 Systran [2010] ECR II-6083; judgment quashed and case dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction upon appeal, cf. Case C-103/11 P Systran [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 18 April 2013) (OJ 2013 C 164, p. 2) (EU:C:2013:245).

  14. 14.

    Cf. Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) 23.

  15. 15.

    EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/networkcommentaryfinal_en.pdf, June 2006, 164–165; with references to Pine Valley Developments Ltd. v Ireland Series A No 222 [1991] ECHR 55, (1992) 14 EHRR 319; Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden App no 7151/75 (A/52), App no 7152/75 (A/52), IHRL 36 (ECHR 1982); Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v Sweden Series A No 159 [1989] ECHR 15, (1991) 13 EHRR 309; Fredin v Sweden Series A No 192 (1991) 13 EHRR 784; Chassagnou and Others v France App No 25088/94, App No 28331/95, App No 28443/95, ECHR 1999-III, (2000) 29 EHRR 615; Bramelid and Malmstrom v Sweden App No 8588/1979, App No 8589/1979 (1982) 5 EHRR 249; Smith Kline and French Laboratories v Netherlands App No 12633/87 (1990) DR 66; Greek Refineries Stran and Stratis Andreadis v Greece (9 December 1994) Series A No 301 B; Pressos Compania Naviera SA and Others v Belgium Series A No 332 (2006) 21 EHRR 301.

  16. 16.

    Cf. Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29), Article 9 a contrario.

  17. 17.

    Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357.

  18. 18.

    Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of the employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23). Cf., now, Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).

  19. 19.

    Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357, para 44.

  20. 20.

    Case C-278/05 Robins [2007] ECR I-1053.

  21. 21.

    Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23). Cf., now, Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).

  22. 22.

    Case C-278/05 Robins [2007] ECR I-1053, paras 35–41.

  23. 23.

    Case C-278/05 Robins [2007] ECR I-1053, para 46.

  24. 24.

    Case C-278/05 Robins [2007] ECR I-1053, para 62.

  25. 25.

    Cf. Case C-398/11 Thomas Hogan and Others [2013] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 25 April 2013) (OJ 2013 C 171, p. 6) (EU:C:2013:272), para 51.

  26. 26.

    Case C-278/05 Robins [2007] ECR I-1053, para 75.

  27. 27.

    Case C-278/05 Robins [2007] ECR I-1053, paras 78–80.

  28. 28.

    Case C-278/05 Robins [2007] ECR I-1053, para 81.

  29. 29.

    Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59). Cf., now, Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).

  30. 30.

    Joined Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I-4845.

  31. 31.

    Joined Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I-4845, paras 34–36.

  32. 32.

    Joined Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I-4845, para 37.

  33. 33.

    Joined Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I-4845, para 36.

  34. 34.

    Case C-140/97 Rechberger [1999] ECR I-3499.

  35. 35.

    Joined Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94 Dillenkofer [1996] ECR I-4845.

  36. 36.

    Case C-140/97 Rechberger [1999] ECR I-3499, paras 22–23.

  37. 37.

    Case C-127/95 Norbrook Laboratories [1998] ECR I-1531.

  38. 38.

    Cf. Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 1981 L 317, p. 1). Cf., now, Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 1).

  39. 39.

    Case C-127/95 Norbrook Laboratories [1998] ECR I-1531, para 108.

  40. 40.

    Case C-452/06 Synthon [2008] ECR I-7681.

  41. 41.

    Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

  42. 42.

    Case C-452/06 Synthon [2008] ECR I-7681, para 26.

  43. 43.

    Cf. Case C-98/14 Berlington Hungary and Others [2015] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 11 June 2015) (OJ 2015 C 270, p. 10) (EU:C:2015:386), para 105.

  44. 44.

    Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur [1996] ECR I-1029.

  45. 45.

    Case 178/84 Commission v Germany [1987] ECR1227.

  46. 46.

    Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur [1996] ECR I-1029, para 54.

  47. 47.

    Case C-5/94 Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-2553.

  48. 48.

    Council Directive 74/577/EEC of 18 November 1974 on stunning of animals before slaughter (OJ 1974 L 316, p. 10). Cf., now, Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing (OJ 1992 L 340, p. 21).

  49. 49.

    Case C-5/94 Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-2553.

  50. 50.

    Case C-5/94 Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-2553, para 18.

  51. 51.

    Case C-5/94 Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-2553, para 20.

  52. 52.

    Case C-5/94 Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-2553, para 27.

  53. 53.

    Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Board [1978] ECR 2347.

  54. 54.

    Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Board [1978] ECR 2347, paras 66–67.

  55. 55.

    Case C-224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239.

  56. 56.

    Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475). Cf., now, Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).

  57. 57.

    Case C-15/96 Schöning-Kougebetopoulou [1998] ECR I-47.

  58. 58.

    Case C-224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239, para 103. It may be noted that the Republic of Austria interpreted the question of individual rights differently. Austria made no reference to Article 45 TFEU or Article 7(1) of the Directive in its submissions, but argued that Article 267 TFEU (Article 234 TEC(A), Article 177 TEEC)—i.e. the duty for national courts of last instance to refer cases to the Court of Justice for preliminary rulings—did not confer rights upon individuals. The Court of Justice did not comment on this, nor did the Advocate General. It seems clear that this provision does not itself give rise to individual rights, cf. Sect. 16.5.4. A Member State will not per se be liable for serious breaches of the duty to refer vis-á-vis individuals who have suffered losses for this reason. Rather, this is a matter for the Commission to pursue as an infringement case.

  59. 59.

    Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur [1996] ECR I-1029.

  60. 60.

    Cf. Sect. 11.3.3.2.

  61. 61.

    Case C-221/89 Factortame II [1991] ECR I-3905.

  62. 62.

    Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur [1996] ECR I-1029, para 10.

  63. 63.

    Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur [1996] ECR I-1029, para 54.

  64. 64.

    Case 2/74 Reyners [1974] ECR 631, para 25.

  65. 65.

    Case C-424/97 Haim [2000] ECR I-5123.

  66. 66.

    His application had been refused on the grounds that he had not fulfilled a 2-year preparatory training period, as required by national legislation. This requirement had in a previous judgment (Case C-319/92 Haim [1994] ECR I-425) been evaluated in light of both the Directive on mutual recognition of diplomas for dentists (Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1), cf., now, Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) and the provision on the right of establishment in Article 52 TEEC (Article 43 TEC(A), Article 49 TFEU). In the earlier ruling, the Court of Justice had found no breach of the Directive, but had still held that the national authorities could not refuse the appointment of a dentist to a social security scheme where, most notably, the dentist had already been authorized to practise, and had practised, his profession in several other Member States, without examining whether this experience would correspond to the practise required by national law, cf. Case C-424/97 Haim [2000] ECR I-5123, para 15.

  67. 67.

    Joined Cases C-397 and 410/98 Metallgesellschaft and Hoechst [2001] ECR I-1727.

  68. 68.

    The referring court had questioned the compatibility of the tax legislation with a number of Treaty provisions, namely Article 6 TEEC, Article 52 TEEC (Article 43 TEC(A), Article 49 TFEU), Article 58 TEEC (cf. Article 48/294 TEC(A), Article 54 TFEU) and Article 73b TEEC (Article 56 TEC(A), Article 63 TFEU). The Court of Justice found the provision on the right to establishment, Article 49 TFEU, to be the appropriate point of departure and ultimately ruled that the national tax rules were non-compliant. On the question of restoration or reparation of the applicants’ losses, the United Kingdom government argued that losses would not be recoverable as they had not been mitigated. In this respect, the government argued that the companies should have invoked a lack of compliance with the European Community rules and so relied on the primacy and direct effect of those rules. The Court of Justice had little sympathy for this line of reasoning. It held that the ‘exercise of rights conferred on private persons by directly applicable provisions of Community law’ would be rendered impossible or excessively difficult if their claims could be rejected solely on such grounds, cf. Joined Cases C-397 and 410/98 Metallgesellschaft and Hoechst [2001] ECR I-1727, para 106.

  69. 69.

    Case C-524/04 Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation [2007] ECR I-2107.

  70. 70.

    The referring court asked whether these rules were compatible with the provisions on freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU, Article 43 TEC(A), Article 52 TEEC), the freedom to provide services (Article 56 TFEU, Article 49 TEC(A), Article 59 TEEC), and the freedom of movement of capital (Article 63 TFEU, Article 56 TEC(A), Article 73b TEEC). The Court of Justice, however, held that the rules should be regarded only in light of the right to establishment.

  71. 71.

    Case C-446/04 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation [2006] ECR I-11753.

  72. 72.

    As put by the United Kingdom court, the case dealt with ‘factual situations which are the opposite of those which gave rise to the questions considered in Hoechst and the ACT group litigation’, cf. Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2008] EWHC 2893 (Ch), para 2. While Metallgesellschaft and Hoechst concerned UK-resident subsidiaries of foreign parent companies, this case concerned foreign subsidiaries of UK companies, cf. Williams (2010), p. 564.

  73. 73.

    Cf., e.g., the later Case C-524/04 Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation [2007] ECR I-2107, para 36, with references to Case C-307/97 Saint-Gobain ZN [1999] ECR I-6161, para 35; Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, para 30; and Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas [2006] ECR I-7995, para 41.

  74. 74.

    Case C-446/04 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation [2006] ECR I-11753, para 39.

  75. 75.

    Case 127/73 BRT I [1974] ECR 51.

  76. 76.

    Case 127/73 BRT I [1974] ECR 51, para 16.

  77. 77.

    Case 127/73 BRT I [1974] ECR 51, para 17.

  78. 78.

    Case 234/89 Delimitis [1991] ECR I-935.

  79. 79.

    Case 234/89 Delimitis [1991] ECR I-935, paras 45–46.

  80. 80.

    Cf. Sect. 12.4.4.

  81. 81.

    Case C-453/99 Courage v Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297.

  82. 82.

    Joined Cases C-295 to C-298/04 Manfredi [2006] ECR I-6619.

  83. 83.

    Eilmansberger (2004), p. 1226.

  84. 84.

    Hjelmeng (2013), p. 1010.

  85. 85.

    Cf., instead, e.g., Cseres and Mendes (2014).

  86. 86.

    Joined Cases C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P and C-519/06 P GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission [2009] ECR I-9291, para 63.

  87. 87.

    Cf., in general, e.g., Case C-279/93 Schumacker [1995] ECR I-225; Case C-391/97 Gschwind [1999] ECR I-5451; Case C-520/04 Turpeinen [2006] ECR I-10685; and Case C-169/03 Wallentin [2004] ECR I-6443.

  88. 88.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389).

  89. 89.

    Cf., e.g., the Belgian Constitution Article 170: ‘Geen belasting ten behoeve van de Staat kan worden ingevoerd dan door een wet’/‘Aucun impôt au profit de l’état ne peut être établi que par une loi’.

  90. 90.

    Case C-319/96 Brinkmann [1998] ECR I-5255.

  91. 91.

    Second Council Directive (79/32/EEC) of 18 December 1978 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1979 L 10, p. 8). Cf., now, Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).

  92. 92.

    Case C-66/95 Sutton [1997] ECR I-2163.

  93. 93.

    Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

  94. 94.

    Case T-259/03 Nikolaou v Commission [2007] ECR II-99 (Summ.pub.), para 39.

  95. 95.

    Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1).

  96. 96.

    Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

  97. 97.

    Case T-259/03 Nikolaou v Commission [2007] ECR II-99 (Summ.pub.), paras 210–211.

  98. 98.

    Case 145/83 Adams v Commission [1985] ECR 3539.

  99. 99.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389).

  100. 100.

    Eventual accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, at the time of writing still a matter under negotiation, will alter the situation further. A draft agreement on accession was drawn up in 2013, but in December 2014 the Court of Justice concluded that the draft was incompatible with European Union law (Opinion 2/13 pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU on the draft agreement on accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (EU:C:2014:2454), somewhat contrary to its Advocate General, although she also had reservations (View of Advocate General Kokott in Opinion procedure 2/13 initiated following a request by the European Commission on the draft agreement on accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (EU:C:2014:2475).

  101. 101.

    Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02 Di Lenardo and Dilexport [2004] ECR I-6911, paras 36 and 73.

  102. 102.

    Joined Cases C-37/02 and C-38/02 Di Lenardo and Dilexport [2004] ECR I-6911, para 82. Cf., also, e.g., Case C-611/12 P Giordano [2014] ECR I-nyr (ECJ 14 October 2014) (OJ 2014 C 462, p. 3) (EU:C:2014:2282), para 49.

  103. 103.

    Case C-44/94 Fishermen’s Organisations and Others [1995] ECR I-3115, para 55; Case C-200/96 Metronome Musik [1998] ECR I-1953, para 21; and Joined Cases C-20/00 and C-64/00 Booker Aquacultur and Hydro Seafood [2003] ECR I-7411, para 68.

  104. 104.

    Opinion of Advocate General Alber in Case C-94/02 P Établissements Biret et Cie [2003] ECR I-10565, para 92.

  105. 105.

    Case 240/83 ADBHU [1985] ECR 538, para 9.

  106. 106.

    Case C-104/97 P Atlanta [1999] ECR I-6983, para 47.

  107. 107.

    Case C-317/00 P (R) ‘Invest’ Import und Export and Invest Commerce v Commission [2000] ECR I-9541, para 57.

  108. 108.

    Case C-243/09 Fuß [2010] ECR I-9849.

  109. 109.

    Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

  110. 110.

    Case C-243/09 Fuß [2010] ECR I-9849, para 52.

  111. 111.

    Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others [2004] ECR I-8835.

  112. 112.

    Case C-243/09 Fuß [2010] ECR I-9849, para 65.

  113. 113.

    Cf. Sect. 15.4.

  114. 114.

    Tridimas (2014), p. 379.

  115. 115.

    Regulation (EU) No 462/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies (OJ 2013 L 146, p. 1).

  116. 116.

    Regulation (EU) No 462/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies (OJ 2013 L 146, p. 1), preamble, para 32.

References

  • Aalto P (2011) Public liability in EU law. Brasserie, Bergaderm and Beyond. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengoetxea J (2012) Rights (and obligations) in EU law. In: Jones E et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 734–748

    Google Scholar 

  • Cseres KJ, Mendes J (2014) Consumers’ access to EU competition law procedures: outer and inner limits. CML Rev 51:483–521

    Google Scholar 

  • de Búrca G (1996) The language of rights and European integration. In: Shaw J, More G (eds) New legal dynamics of European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 29–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Eilmansberger T (2004) The relationship between rights and remedies in EC law: in search of the missing link. CML Rev 41:1199–1246

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjelmeng E (2013) Competition law remedies: striving for coherence or finding new ways? CML Rev 50:1007–1037

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N (1998) ‘System der subjektiven öffentlichen Rechte’ in the Union: A European Constitution for Citizens of Bits and Pieces. In: Academy of European Law (ed) Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, Volume VI, Book I. Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, pp 157–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2014) Fundamental rights, general principles of EU law, and the Charter. CYELS 16:361–392

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dam C (2013) European Tort Law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bar C, Clive E (eds) (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams R (2010) Case C-47/07, Masdar (UK) Ltd. v Commission, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 16 December 2008, not yet reported; Case C-466/04, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 12 December 2006, [2006] ECR I-11753. CML Rev 47:555–573

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Private Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Bjarte Thorson

Authors
  1. Bjarte Thorson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thorson, B. (2016). Functions and Types of Rights. In: Individual Rights in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32771-6_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32770-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32771-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation