{"id":13430,"date":"2023-06-28T19:15:19","date_gmt":"2023-06-28T19:15:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?p=13430"},"modified":"2023-11-23T09:38:32","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T14:38:32","slug":"case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677","title":{"rendered":"Case Summary: Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-legal-principles-and-key-points\"><strong>Legal Principles and Key Points<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In the case of Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677, having considered Advocate General Jacobs\u2019 opinion, the European Court of Justice rejected his opinion that there should be individual concern where a person is adversely affected by a Community law measure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts of Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>UPA, a trade association of farmers, brought proceedings seeking to partially annul Council Regulation 136\/66 which withdrew consumption aid granted to small olive oil producers pursuant to Article 173 (now Article 263 TFEU)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Court of First Instance held that the members of the association were not individually concerned<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>This was because they would be in the same situation as other traders who may enter the markets, either at that point or at some time in the future<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Following this decision, the association appealed, arguing that effective judicial protections would be rendered hollow if UPA could not appeal the measure at hand<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issues in Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Did the applicant have individual concern in the measure, therefore having legal standing to challenge the council regulation?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Held by the European Court of Justice<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Appeal dismissed. Agreeing with the decision of the Court of First Instance, the appellant had no standing.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Findings of the Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The national courts should have the appropriate measures in place:<\/p><div id=\"caree-514268262\" class=\"caree-within-the-content caree-entity-placement\" style=\"margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto;text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1.png\" alt=\"\"  srcset=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1.png 448w, https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1-300x250.png 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 448px) 100vw, 448px\" width=\"448\" height=\"373\"  style=\"display: inline-block;\" \/><\/div>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u201cin accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty, national courts are required, so far as possible, to interpret and apply national procedural rules governing the exercise of rights of action in a way that enables natural and legal persons to challenge \u2026 the legality of any decision or other national measure relative to the application to them of a Community act of general application, by pleading the invalidity of such an act.\u201d [42]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Agreeing with the AG\u2019s opinion, it is not for the CJEU to look at \u201ceach individual case, to examine and interpret national procedural law\u201d as this \u201cwould go beyond its jurisdiction when reviewing the legality of Community measures.\u201d [43]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Advocate General Jacobs\u2019 differing opinion from the CJEU<\/strong>:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>AG Jacobs believed proceedings before national courts cannot guarantee \u201cfully effective judicial protection\u201d for individual applicants [40]; he outlined:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\" type=\"1\">\n<li>\u201c\u2026 national courts are not competent to declare measures of Community law invalid \u2026 a case concerning the validity of a Community measure, the competence of the national court is limited to assessing whether the applicant&#8217;s arguments raise sufficient doubts about the validity of the impugned measure to justify a request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice. It seems to me, therefore, artificial to argue that the national courts are the correct forum for such cases. The strictly limited competence of national courts in cases concerning the validity of Community measures may be contrasted with the important role which they play in cases concerning the interpretation, application and enforcement of Community law\u201d [41]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cprinciple of effective judicial protection requires that applicants have access to a court which is competent to grant remedies capable of protecting them against the effects of unlawful measures. Access to the Court of Justice via Article 234 EC is however not a remedy available to individual applicants as a matter of right. National courts may refuse to refer questions, and although courts of last instance are obliged to refer under the third paragraph of Article 234 EC, appeals within the national judicial systems are liable to entail long delays which may themselves be incompatible with the principle of effective judicial protection and with the need for legal certainty.\u201d [42]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>An individual may find it difficult or impossible \u201cto challenge Community measures which &#8211; as appears to be the case for the contested regulation &#8211; do not require any acts of implementation by national authorities.\u201d [43]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cproceedings before the national courts present serious disadvantages for individual applicants \u2026 potential for delay inherent in proceedings brought before domestic courts, with the possibility of appeals within the national system, makes it likely that interim measures will be necessary in many cases \u2026 the exercise of that jurisdiction is subject to a number of conditions and is \u2026 to some extent dependent on the discretion of national courts \u2026 interim measures awarded by a national court would be confined to the Member State in question, and applicants might therefore have to bring proceedings in more than one Member State. That would, given the possibility of conflicting decisions by courts in different Member States, prejudice the uniform application of Community law, and in extreme cases could totally subvert it.\u201d [44]<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>AG Jacobs was of the opinion that it should be accepted one is \u201cindividually concerned by a Community measure where, by reason of his particular circumstances, the measure has, or is liable to have, a substantial adverse effect on his interests\u201d [60] \u2013 the CJEU did not agree with this proposed test.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Principles and Key Points Facts of Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677 Issues in Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677 Held by the European Court of Justice Findings of the Court The national courts should have the appropriate measures in place: Agreeing with the AG\u2019s opinion, it is not for the CJEU [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":13103,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-13430","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-case-summaries","8":"entry"},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v24.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Case Summary: Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677 | Careerinlaw.net | UK<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In the case of Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677, having considered Advocate General Jacobs\u2019 opinion, the European Court of Justice rejected his opinion that there should be individual concern where a person is adversely affected by a Community law measure.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case Summary: Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the case of Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677, having considered Advocate General Jacobs\u2019 opinion, the European Court of Justice rejected his opinion that there should be individual concern where a person is adversely affected by a Community law measure.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-06-28T19:15:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-23T14:38:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Boris Ignachkov\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Boris Ignachkov\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\"},\"headline\":\"Case Summary: Case C-50\\\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-06-28T19:15:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:38:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677\"},\"wordCount\":799,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677\",\"name\":\"Case Summary: Case C-50\\\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677 | Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-06-28T19:15:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:38:32+00:00\",\"description\":\"In the case of Case C-50\\\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677, having considered Advocate General Jacobs\u2019 opinion, the European Court of Justice rejected his opinion that there should be individual concern where a person is adversely affected by a Community law measure.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Case Summary Careerinlaw Cover Photo\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case Summary: Case C-50\\\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\",\"name\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\",\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Boris Ignachkov\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/author\\\/boris\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Case Summary: Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"In the case of Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677, having considered Advocate General Jacobs\u2019 opinion, the European Court of Justice rejected his opinion that there should be individual concern where a person is adversely affected by a Community law measure.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case Summary: Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677","og_description":"In the case of Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677, having considered Advocate General Jacobs\u2019 opinion, the European Court of Justice rejected his opinion that there should be individual concern where a person is adversely affected by a Community law measure.","og_url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677","og_site_name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","article_published_time":"2023-06-28T19:15:19+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-23T14:38:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Boris Ignachkov","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Boris Ignachkov","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677"},"author":{"name":"Boris Ignachkov","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa"},"headline":"Case Summary: Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677","datePublished":"2023-06-28T19:15:19+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:38:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677"},"wordCount":799,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677","name":"Case Summary: Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","datePublished":"2023-06-28T19:15:19+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:38:32+00:00","description":"In the case of Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677, having considered Advocate General Jacobs\u2019 opinion, the European Court of Justice rejected his opinion that there should be individual concern where a person is adversely affected by a Community law measure.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Case Summary Careerinlaw Cover Photo"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-case-c-50-00-p-upa-2002-ecr-i-6677#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case Summary: Case C-50\/00 P, UPA [2002] ECR I-6677"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/","name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization","name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/12\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/12\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Careerinlaw.net | UK"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa","name":"Boris Ignachkov","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Boris Ignachkov"},"url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/author\/boris"}]}},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13430","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13430"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13430\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13103"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13430"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13430"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13430"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}