ââDescribe the political opportunity theory of social movements. Identify its limitations and highlight its significance in the study of social movements.
Sample Solution
Though the Court did not explicitly state that abuse of Community law is a general principle, it agreed with the Commission and implicitly did so. It set up a twofold test for determining such abuse; one part being objective and the other subjective. By including the subjective intention of an interested party involved, Emsland Stärke narrowed down the wide scope the prohibition of abuse had in Van Binsbergen, while conduct which under Centros criteria would be normally considered a mere exercise of fundamental freedoms, would instead constitute abuse, if the objective and subjective elements of the test were cumulatively met. 3.1.1 The Objective element In establishing the objective element, the Court did not deviate from what was already established in previous caselaw. In order to fulfil this element, it must be proved that the person seeking to have the right has obtained it for the achievement of an âimproper advantage, manifestly contrary to the objective of that provisionâ. Thus, if the right in question is exercised within the aims and limits of Union law, there is no abuse, merely a legitimate exercise of a right. 3.1.2 The Subjective element The subjective element of this test attracted much controversy and produced much scholarly debate. Motives are irrelevant in this exercise, as they do not exist when it comes to legal>
Though the Court did not explicitly state that abuse of Community law is a general principle, it agreed with the Commission and implicitly did so. It set up a twofold test for determining such abuse; one part being objective and the other subjective. By including the subjective intention of an interested party involved, Emsland Stärke narrowed down the wide scope the prohibition of abuse had in Van Binsbergen, while conduct which under Centros criteria would be normally considered a mere exercise of fundamental freedoms, would instead constitute abuse, if the objective and subjective elements of the test were cumulatively met. 3.1.1 The Objective element In establishing the objective element, the Court did not deviate from what was already established in previous caselaw. In order to fulfil this element, it must be proved that the person seeking to have the right has obtained it for the achievement of an âimproper advantage, manifestly contrary to the objective of that provisionâ. Thus, if the right in question is exercised within the aims and limits of Union law, there is no abuse, merely a legitimate exercise of a right. 3.1.2 The Subjective element The subjective element of this test attracted much controversy and produced much scholarly debate. Motives are irrelevant in this exercise, as they do not exist when it comes to legal>
