1. Case-study. Methodological guidelines
How to deal with a case of the ECJ

2. Order! → arrange your case
Keep in mind that a proper approach requires to identify the matter at hand and to distinguish the different issues: what is your case about? What problems arise? → what issues did the ECJ addressed? How? ↓
The factual aspects of the case
The legal issue(s) at stake

3. The factual background
Keep in mind the features of the preliminary ruling → the ECJ deals with a specific legal issue (interpretation of EU law) referred to it by a national court before which a case is pending (main proceedings)
Look at the main proceedings → in order to define the case → identify →
what are the relevant facts → bearing in mind which freedom applies (ex. cross-border factor)
What is the national rule whose compatibility with EU law is to be determined by the seised court

4. How to approach the law issues at stake
The legal issues
How to approach the law issues at stake ↓
General remarks
Don’t look (only) at the final outcome (the decision), but also and above all at the legal reasoning!
Keep in mind the dialectical structure of judicial proceedings → Court’s rulings is based upon the opposite arguments put forward by the parties → don’t forget the Opinion of the Advocate General!
Remember: you are required to study past cases in order to learn how to solve new ones → you don’t have to tell a story! You have to show your ability to understand the case thanks to the skills you are supposed to have acquired

5. Your minimum task is to determine↓
In limine → What are the relevant EU rules? Do they apply to the case at hand? Why?
What is the problem the ECJ is faced with?
What is the Court’s decision? (ex. whether the national rule is a restriction or not)
What are the arguments such a decision is based upon? Quote the relevant parts (numbered paragraphs) of the judgment!

6. A critical assessment of the Court’s rulings
A thorough analysis
A critical assessment of the Court’s rulings ↓
The legal background: the decision at hand cannot be read without taking duly into account the previous case-law → is the ECJ merely “applying” the settled case-law or is it adding something or specifying it? → what is the added value of the case (why it is worthy to be studied)?
What is the rationale underlying the Court’s decision? → namely which concept of “restriction on free movement” is the Court pointing out?