Context: The LOC included Launch Complex 39, a Launch Control Center, and a 130 million cubic foot (3.7 million cubic meter) Vertical Assembly Building (VAB) in which the space vehicle (launch vehicle and spacecraft) would be assembled on a Mobile Launcher Platform and then moved by a transporter to one of several launch pads. Although at least three pads were planned, only two, designated A and B, were completed in October 1965. The LOC also included an Operations and Checkout Building (OCB) to which Gemini and Apollo spacecraft were initially received prior to being mated to their launch vehicles. The Apollo spacecraft could be tested in two vacuum chambers capable of simulating atmospheric pressure at altitudes up to 250,000 feet (76 km), which is nearly a vacuum.

Question: How many launch pads were originally planned?

Question: What spacecraft was tested in two vacuum chambers to simulate atmospheric pressure?

Question: How high in altitude in feet could the vacuum chambers simulate?

Question: How big was the Vertical Assembly Building?


Context: Administrator Webb realized that in order to keep Apollo costs under control, he had to develop greater project management skills in his organization, so he recruited Dr. George E. Mueller for a high management job. Mueller accepted, on the condition that he have a say in NASA reorganization necessary to effectively administer Apollo. Webb then worked with Associate Administrator (later Deputy Administrator) Robert Seamans to reorganize the Office of Manned Space Flight (OMSF). On July 23, 1963, Webb announced Mueller's appointment as Deputy Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, to replace then Associate Administrator D. Brainerd Holmes on his retirement effective September 1. Under Webb's reorganization, the directors of the Manned Spacecraft Center (Gilruth) Marshall Space Flight Center (von Braun) and the Launch Operations Center (Debus) effectively reported to Mueller.

Question: Who did Webb recruit for better project management?

Question: When was Mueller announced and appointed as Deputy Associate Administrator?

Question: Who was Mueller replaced as Associate Administrator?

Question: The administrators and directors Gilruth, von Braun and Debus reported to who?


Context: Based on his industry experience on Air Force missile projects, Mueller realized some skilled managers could be found among high-ranking officers in the United States Air Force, so he got Webb's permission to recruit General Samuel C. Phillips, who gained a reputation for his effective management of the Minuteman program, as OMSF program controller. Phillips' superior officer Bernard A. Schriever agreed to loan Phillips to NASA, along with a staff of officers under him, on the condition that Phillips be made Apollo Program Director. Mueller agreed, and Phillips managed Apollo from January 1964, until it achieved the first manned landing in July 1969, after which he returned to Air Force duty.

Question: What did Mueller have experience with prior to joining the space program?

Question: From what military branch did Mueller recruit managers from?

Question: Who did Mueller recruit to be a manager for NASA projects on a loaned situation?

Question: How long did Phillips manage the Apollo missions?

Question: What was Phillips official title for NASA?


Context: In early 1961, direct ascent was generally the mission mode in favor at NASA. Many engineers feared that a rendezvous —let alone a docking— neither of which had been attempted even in Earth orbit, would be extremely difficult in lunar orbit. Dissenters including John Houbolt at Langley Research Center emphasized the important weight reductions that were offered by the LOR approach. Throughout 1960 and 1961, Houbolt campaigned for the recognition of LOR as a viable and practical option. Bypassing the NASA hierarchy, he sent a series of memos and reports on the issue to Associate Administrator Robert Seamans; while acknowledging that he spoke "somewhat as a voice in the wilderness," Houbolt pleaded that LOR should not be discounted in studies of the question.

Question: What did the engineers fear would be difficult in space due to it never being attempted in Earth orbit?

Question: In what year was direct ascent the primary mission focus at NASA?

Question: Who was the Associate Administrator that Houbolt spoke with?


Context: Seamans' establishment of an ad-hoc committee headed by his special technical assistant Nicholas E. Golovin in July 1961, to recommend a launch vehicle to be used in the Apollo program, represented a turning point in NASA's mission mode decision. This committee recognized that the chosen mode was an important part of the launch vehicle choice, and recommended in favor of a hybrid EOR-LOR mode. Its consideration of LOR —as well as Houbolt's ceaseless work— played an important role in publicizing the workability of the approach. In late 1961 and early 1962, members of the Manned Spacecraft Center began to come around to support LOR, including the newly hired deputy director of the Office of Manned Space Flight, Joseph Shea, who became a champion of LOR. The engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) took longer to become convinced of its merits, but their conversion was announced by Wernher von Braun at a briefing in June 1962.

Question: Who led the committee established by Seaman?

Question: When was this committee by Seaman established?

Question: Which NASA faction came around first to support the LOR?

Question: Who was hired to be the deputy director of the Office of Manned Space Flight?

Question: Which NASA location came around last to the idea of the LOR?


Context: But even after NASA reached internal agreement, it was far from smooth sailing. Kennedy's science advisor Jerome Wiesner, who had expressed his opposition to manned spaceflight to Kennedy before the President took office, and had opposed the decision to land men on the Moon, hired Golovin, who had left NASA, to chair his own "Space Vehicle Panel", ostensibly to monitor, but actually to second-guess NASA's decisions on the Saturn V launch vehicle and LOR by forcing Shea, Seamans, and even Webb to defend themselves, delaying its formal announcement to the press on July 11, 1962, and forcing Webb to still hedge the decision as "tentative".

Question: Who was Kennedy's science adviser that opposed manned spacecraft flights?

Question: Who did Wiesner hire to monitor and second guess NASA's decisions?

Question: Where did Golovin work prior to joining the "Space Vehicle Panel"?

Question: When was the announcement for the LOR made after being delayed?


Context: Wiesner kept up the pressure, even making the disagreement public during a two-day September visit by the President to Marshall Space Flight Center. Wiesner blurted out "No, that's no good" in front of the press, during a presentation by von Braun. Webb jumped in and defended von Braun, until Kennedy ended the squabble by stating that the matter was "still subject to final review". Webb held firm, and issued a request for proposal to candidate Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) contractors. Wiesner finally relented, unwilling to settle the dispute once and for all in Kennedy's office, because of the President's involvement with the October Cuban missile crisis, and fear of Kennedy's support for Webb. NASA announced the selection of Grumman as the LEM contractor in November 1962.

Question: Who was keeping pressure and showing disagreements for the LOR, even in front of the President?

Question: What did Wiesner shout out in front of the press during a presentation by von Braun?

Question: What does the acronym LEM stand for?

Question: Who was announced as the LEM contractor in November 1962?


Context: The LOR method had the advantage of allowing the lander spacecraft to be used as a "lifeboat" in the event of a failure of the command ship. Some documents prove this theory was discussed before and after the method was chosen. A 1964 MSC study concluded, "The LM [as lifeboat] ... was finally dropped, because no single reasonable CSM failure could be identified that would prohibit use of the SPS." Ironically, just such a failure happened on Apollo 13 when an oxygen tank explosion left the command ship without electrical power. The Lunar Module provided propulsion, electrical power and life support to get the crew home safely.

Question: What was the advantage that the LOR method produced in the event of a spacecraft failure?

Question: What Apollo mission was this LOR method used and needed?

Question: What did the Lunar Module provide to help get the Apollo 13 home safely?

Question: In what year was the Lunar Module (LM) dropped because it wasn't seen as useful?


Context: Maxime Faget's preliminary Apollo design employed a cone-shaped command module, supported by one of several service modules providing propulsion and electrical power, sized appropriately for the space station, cislunar, and lunar landing missions. Once Kennedy's Moon landing goal became official, detailed design began of a Command/Service Module (CSM) in which the crew would spend the entire direct-ascent mission and lift off from the lunar surface for the return trip, after being soft-landed by a larger landing propulsion module. The final choice of lunar orbit rendezvous changed the CSM's role to the translunar ferry used to transport the crew, along with a new spacecraft, the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM, later shortened to Lunar Module, LM) which would take two men to the lunar surface and return them to the CSM.

Question: What was the shape that Faget designed for the Apollo command module?

Question: What does the acronym CSM stand for?

Question: How many men would the LM take to the lunar surface and return to the CSM?


Context: The Command Module (CM) was the conical crew cabin, designed to carry three astronauts from launch to lunar orbit and back to an Earth ocean landing. It was the only component of the Apollo spacecraft to survive without major configuration changes as the program evolved from the early Apollo study designs. Its exterior was covered with an ablative heat shield, and had its own reaction control system (RCS) engines to control its attitude and steer its atmospheric entry path. Parachutes were carried to slow its descent to splashdown. The module was 11.42 feet (3.48 m) tall, 12.83 feet (3.91 m) in diameter, and weighed approximately 12,250 pounds (5,560 kg).

Question: How many people was the CM designed to carry in the end?

Question: Where was the CM intended to land upon re entering the Earth's atmosphere?

Question: The outside of the CM was covered in what kind of material?

Question: What was incorporated to help slow the CM's decent back to Earth?

Question: How much did the CM weigh in kgs?


Context: A cylindrical Service Module (SM) supported the Command Module, with a service propulsion engine and an RCS with propellants, and a fuel cell power generation system with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen reactants. A high-gain S-band antenna was used for long-distance communications on the lunar flights. On the extended lunar missions, an orbital scientific instrument package was carried. The Service Module was discarded just before re-entry. The module was 24.6 feet (7.5 m) long and 12.83 feet (3.91 m) in diameter. The initial lunar flight version weighed approximately 51,300 pounds (23,300 kg) fully fueled, while a later version designed to carry a lunar orbit scientific instrument package weighed just over 54,000 pounds (24,000 kg).

Question: What helped support the Command Module with a propulsion engine and propellants?

Question: What type of antenna was used for communication on the lunar flights?

Question: What happened to the SM upon reentry to the atmosphere?

Question: How much did the initial version of the SM weigh in pounds?

Question: What was carried on extended lunar missions?


Context: North American Aviation won the contract to build the CSM, and also the second stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle for NASA. Because the CSM design was started early before the selection of lunar orbit rendezvous, the service propulsion engine was sized to lift the CSM off of the Moon, and thus was oversized to about twice the thrust required for translunar flight. Also, there was no provision for docking with the Lunar Module. A 1964 program definition study concluded that the initial design should be continued as Block I which would be used for early testing, while Block II, the actual lunar spacecraft, would incorporate the docking equipment and take advantage of the lessons learned in Block I development.

Question: Who was rewarded with building the CSM?

Question: How much thrust was estimated for the translunar flight?

Question: In what year was a program study done on the modules labeled as Block I and Block II?

Question: What was the name of the launch vehicle for NASA, which North American Aviation designed the second stage of?


Context: The Lunar Module (LM) was designed to descend from lunar orbit to land two astronauts on the Moon and take them back to orbit to rendezvous with the Command Module. Not designed to fly through the Earth's atmosphere or return to Earth, its fuselage was designed totally without aerodynamic considerations, and was of an extremely lightweight construction. It consisted of separate descent and ascent stages, each with its own engine. The descent stage contained storage for the descent propellant, surface stay consumables, and surface exploration equipment. The ascent stage contained the crew cabin, ascent propellant, and a reaction control system. The initial LM model weighed approximately 33,300 pounds (15,100 kg), and allowed surface stays up to around 34 hours. An Extended Lunar Module weighed over 36,200 pounds (16,400 kg), and allowed surface stays of over 3 days.

Question: How many astronauts was the LM intended to take from orbit of the moon to the surface of the moon?

Question: Was the LM intended to return to Earth at all?

Question: The initial LM weighed how much in kgs?

Question: For about how long would the extended LM allow a surface stay on the moon?


Context: Before the Apollo program began, Wernher von Braun and his team of rocket engineers had started work on plans for very large launch vehicles, the Saturn series, and the even larger Nova series. In the midst of these plans, von Braun was transferred from the Army to NASA, and made Director of the Marshall Space Flight Center. The initial direct ascent plan to send the three-man Apollo Command/Service Module directly to the lunar surface, on top of a large descent rocket stage, would require a Nova-class launcher, with a lunar payload capability of over 180,000 pounds (82,000 kg). The June 11, 1962, decision to use lunar orbit rendezvous enabled the Saturn V to replace the Nova, and the MSFC proceeded to develop the Saturn rocket family for Apollo.

Question: Who had worked on the Saturn series even before the Apollo program began officially?

Question: From where was von Braun transferred to go to NASA?

Question: When was the decision made to replace the Nova rockets with the Saturn V?


Context: The first four Saturn I test flights were launched from LC-34, with only live first stages, carrying dummy upper stages filled with water. The first flight with a live S-IV was launched from LC-37. This was followed by five launches of boilerplate CSMs (designated AS-101 through AS-105) into orbit in 1964 and 1965. The last three of these further supported the Apollo program by also carrying Pegasus satellites, which verified the safety of the translunar environment by measuring the frequency and severity of micrometeorite impacts.

Question: What did the initial first stages of the Saturn I tests carry?

Question: When did the launches of boilerplate CSMs occur in orbit?

Question: What did the last few of the boilerplate CSM launches carry with them?

Question: What did Pegasus satellites measure to propose the safety of the environment in space and on the moon?


Context: The Saturn IB was an upgraded version of the Saturn I. The S-IB first stage increased the thrust to 1,600,000 pounds-force (7,120 kN), and the second stage replaced the S-IV with the S-IVB-200, powered by a single J-2 engine burning liquid hydrogen fuel with LOX, to produce 200,000 lbf (890 kN) of thrust. A restartable version of the S-IVB was used as the third stage of the Saturn V. The Saturn IB could send over 40,000 pounds (18,100 kg) into low Earth orbit, sufficient for a partially fueled CSM or the LM. Saturn IB launch vehicles and flights were designated with an AS-200 series number, "AS" indicating "Apollo Saturn" and the "2" indicating the second member of the Saturn rocket family.

Question: What was the name of the upgraded Saturn I called?

Question: How much did the second stage increase thrust by with the integration of the S-IVB-200?

Question: The S-IVB-200 was used in what stage of the Saturn V?

Question: How much weight could the Saturn IB send into space with this amount of thrust?


Context: The three-stage Saturn V was designed to send a fully fueled CSM and LM to the Moon. It was 33 feet (10.1 m) in diameter and stood 363 feet (110.6 m) tall with its 96,800-pound (43,900 kg) lunar payload. Its capability grew to 103,600 pounds (47,000 kg) for the later advanced lunar landings. The S-IC first stage burned RP-1/LOX for a rated thrust of 7,500,000 pounds-force (33,400 kN), which was upgraded to 7,610,000 pounds-force (33,900 kN). The second and third stages burned liquid hydrogen, and the third stage was a modified version of the S-IVB, with thrust increased to 230,000 lbf (1,020 kN) and capability to restart the engine for translunar injection after reaching a parking orbit.

Question: What was intended to take a CSM and LM, fully fueled, to the moon?

Question: What was the diameter of the Saturn V in feet?

Question: How many stages did the Saturn V end up having?

Question: What did the second stage in the Saturn V end up doing?


Context: The Apollo astronauts were chosen from the Project Mercury and Gemini veterans, plus from two later astronaut groups. All missions were commanded by Gemini or Mercury veterans. Crews on all development flights (except the Earth orbit CSM development flights) through the first two landings on Apollo 11 and Apollo 12, included at least two (sometimes three) Gemini veterans. Dr. Harrison Schmitt, a geologist, was the first NASA scientist astronaut to fly in space, and landed on the Moon on the last mission, Apollo 17. Schmitt participated in the lunar geology training of all of the Apollo landing crews.

Question: From what project groups were the Apollo astronauts selected?

Question: How many Apollo missions were manned by the previous Mercury and Gemini veterans?

Question: Who was the first NASA scientist in space?

Question: Which mission did Schmitt finally land on the moon?

Question: Apollo 17 was significant for what reason?


Context: NASA awarded all 32 of these astronauts its highest honor, the Distinguished Service Medal, given for "distinguished service, ability, or courage", and personal "contribution representing substantial progress to the NASA mission". The medals were awarded posthumously to Grissom, White, and Chaffee in 1969, then to the crews of all missions from Apollo 8 onward. The crew that flew the first Earth orbital test mission Apollo 7, Walter M. Schirra, Donn Eisele, and Walter Cunningham, were awarded the lesser NASA Exceptional Service Medal, because of discipline problems with the Flight Director's orders during their flight. The NASA Administrator in October, 2008, decided to award them the Distinguished Service Medals, by this time posthumously to Schirra and Eisele.

Question: How many astronauts visited space on missions and were rewarded for their efforts?

Question: What type of medal did NASA give the astronauts who visited space and the moon?

Question: In what year were the Distinguished Service Medals awarded to Grissom, White, and Chaffee?

Question: What happened during the Apollo 7 test mission to elicit them a lesser version of the DSM?

Question: From what mission and onward were the DSMs awarded?


Context: Two Block I CSMs were launched from LC-34 on suborbital flights in 1966 with the Saturn IB. The first, AS-201 launched on February 26, reached an altitude of 265.7 nautical miles (492.1 km) and splashed down 4,577 nautical miles (8,477 km) downrange in the Atlantic ocean. The second, AS-202 on August 25, reached 617.1 nautical miles (1,142.9 km) altitude and was recovered 13,900 nautical miles (25,700 km) downrange in the Pacific ocean. These flights validated the Service Module engine and the Command Module heat shield.

Question: In what year were two Block I CSMs launched?

Question: How high in miles did the first block, AS-201, reach when launched?

Question: How far did the second block, AS-202, travel downrange in km?

Question: What did these flights test on the CM?


Context: After an unmanned LM test flight AS-206, a crew would fly the first Block II CSM and LM in a dual mission known as AS-207/208, or AS-278 (each spacecraft would be launched on a separate Saturn IB.) The Block II crew positions were titled Commander (CDR) Command Module Pilot (CMP) and Lunar Module Pilot (LMP). The astronauts would begin wearing a new Apollo spacesuit, designed to accommodate lunar extravehicular activity (EVA). The traditional visor helmet was replaced with a clear "fishbowl" type for greater visibility, and the lunar surface EVA suit would include a water-cooled undergarment.

Question: How many people were on the test flight of the AS-206?

Question: What were the astronauts wearing during the dual mission AS-278?

Question: What was originally on the spacesuits prior to the clear "fishbowl" helmet?

Question: What type of undergarment, if any, was included into the Apollo spacesuit?

Question: What did the LMP acronym stand for regarding the Block II launch positions?


Context: Deke Slayton, the grounded Mercury astronaut who became Director of Flight Crew Operations for the Gemini and Apollo programs, selected the first Apollo crew in January 1966, with Grissom as Command Pilot, White as Senior Pilot, and rookie Donn F. Eisele as Pilot. But Eisele dislocated his shoulder twice aboard the KC135 weightlessness training aircraft, and had to undergo surgery on January 27. Slayton replaced him with Chaffee. NASA announced the final crew selection for AS-204 on March 21, 1966, with the backup crew consisting of Gemini veterans James McDivitt and David Scott, with rookie Russell L. "Rusty" Schweickart. Mercury/Gemini veteran Wally Schirra, Eisele, and rookie Walter Cunningham were announced on September 29 as the prime crew for AS-205.

Question: Who selected the first Apollo crew?

Question: For which project did Deke Slayton work with before becoming Director of Flight Crew Operations?

Question: What year did Slayton select the first Apollo crew?

Question: Who was the original pilot for the first Apollo mission?

Question: What crew did Eisele eventually get relocated to after having surgery and not making the first mission?


Context: In December 1966, the AS-205 mission was canceled, since the validation of the CSM would be accomplished on the 14-day first flight, and AS-205 would have been devoted to space experiments and contribute no new engineering knowledge about the spacecraft. Its Saturn IB was allocated to the dual mission, now redesignated AS-205/208 or AS-258, planned for August 1967. McDivitt, Scott and Schweickart were promoted to the prime AS-258 crew, and Schirra, Eisele and Cunningham were reassigned as the Apollo 1 backup crew.

Question: What happened to the AS-205 mission originally?

Question: In what month and year was the AS-258 scheduled to launch?

Question: What was the dual mission AS-258 a combination of?

Question: Where were Schirra, Eisele and Cunningham relocated to after different astronauts were selected for the AS-258 mission?


Context: The problems with North American were severe enough in late 1965 to cause Manned Space Flight Administrator George Mueller to appoint program director Samuel Phillips to head a "tiger team" to investigate North American's problems and identify corrections. Phillips documented his findings in a December 19 letter to NAA president Lee Atwood, with a strongly worded letter by Mueller, and also gave a presentation of the results to Mueller and Deputy Administrator Robert Seamans. Meanwhile, Grumman was also encountering problems with the Lunar Module, eliminating hopes it would be ready for manned flight in 1967, not long after the first manned CSM flights.

Question: Who was appointed to head a team to find the problems North America had regarding manned space flight?

Question: What was the nickname given to the team Samuel Phillips was appointed to?

Question: What year was the first manned flight with the Lunar Module scheduled?

Question: Who appointed Samuel Phillips to man the tiger team to find answers?


Context: Grissom, White, and Chaffee decided to name their flight Apollo 1 as a motivational focus on the first manned flight. They trained and conducted tests of their spacecraft at North American, and in the altitude chamber at the Kennedy Space Center. A "plugs-out" test was planned for January, which would simulate a launch countdown on LC-34 with the spacecraft transferring from pad-supplied to internal power. If successful, this would be followed by a more rigorous countdown simulation test closer to the February 21 launch, with both spacecraft and launch vehicle fueled.

Question: Where did Apollo 1's crew conduct tests at Kennedy Space Center?

Question: Who was the main crew of Apollo 1, of which they named themselves?

Question: What was a plugs-out test done to simulate on the LC-34?

Question: What other location did Apollo 1 test at besides Kennedy Space Center?


Context: The plugs-out test began on the morning of January 27, 1967, and immediately was plagued with problems. First the crew noticed a strange odor in their spacesuits, which delayed the sealing of the hatch. Then, communications problems frustrated the astronauts and forced a hold in the simulated countdown. During this hold, an electrical fire began in the cabin, and spread quickly in the high pressure, 100% oxygen atmosphere. Pressure rose high enough from the fire that the cabin burst and the fire erupted onto the pad area, frustrating attempts to rescue the crew. The astronauts were asphyxiated before the hatch could be opened.

Question: What was the first problem astronauts encountered during the plugs-out test?

Question: When did the very first plugs-out test occur?

Question: What happened during the plugs-out test during the delay for the spacesuit odor?

Question: What happened to the crew onboard during the plugs-out test?

Question: What type of atmosphere helped fuel the fire throughout the cabin?


Context: NASA immediately convened an accident review board, overseen by both houses of Congress. While the determination of responsibility for the accident was complex, the review board concluded that "deficiencies existed in Command Module design, workmanship and quality control." At the insistence of NASA Administrator Webb, North American removed Harrison Storms as Command Module program manager. Webb also reassigned Apollo Spacecraft Program Office (ASPO) Manager Joseph Francis Shea, replacing him with George Low.

Question: Who kept tabs on the accident review board that NASA created?

Question: What was found to be at fault for the fire in the cabin on Apollo 1 regarding the CM design?

Question: Who ended up replacing Joseph Francis Shea as ASPO Manager?

Question: How soon after the cabin fire incident did NASA create its accident review board?


Context: To remedy the causes of the fire, changes were made in the Block II spacecraft and operational procedures, the most important of which were use of a nitrogen/oxygen mixture instead of pure oxygen before and during launch, and removal of flammable cabin and space suit materials. The Block II design already called for replacement of the Block I plug-type hatch cover with a quick-release, outward opening door. NASA discontinued the manned Block I program, using the Block I spacecraft only for unmanned Saturn V flights. Crew members would also exclusively wear modified, fire-resistant Block II space suits, and would be designated by the Block II titles, regardless of whether a LM was present on the flight or not.

Question: What type of mixture was created to replace the pure oxygen atmosphere inside the cabin?

Question: What type of materials inside the cabin were removed to help prevent more fire hazards in the future?

Question: The door on the Block II design was eventually replaced with what kind of model?

Question: What eventually happened to the Block I program after the incident?

Question: Crew members were required to wear what type of space suit during testing after the incident?


Context: In September 1967, Mueller approved a sequence of mission types which had to be successfully accomplished in order to achieve the manned lunar landing. Each step had to be successfully accomplished before the next ones could be performed, and it was unknown how many tries of each mission would be necessary; therefore letters were used instead of numbers. The A missions were unmanned Saturn V validation; B was unmanned LM validation using the Saturn IB; C was manned CSM Earth orbit validation using the Saturn IB; D was the first manned CSM/LM flight (this replaced AS-258, using a single Saturn V launch); E would be a higher Earth orbit CSM/LM flight; F would be the first lunar mission, testing the LM in lunar orbit but without landing (a "dress rehearsal"); and G would be the first manned landing. The list of types covered follow-on lunar exploration to include H lunar landings, I for lunar orbital survey missions, and J for extended-stay lunar landings.

Question: What type of missions were approved by Mueller after the incident?

Question: What had to happen to each mission before they would continue on to the next mission?

Question: Since NASA didn't know how many attempts each test would end up requiring, what did they use instead of numbers for the trials?


Context: The delay in the CSM caused by the fire enabled NASA to catch up on man-rating the LM and Saturn V. Apollo 4 (AS-501) was the first unmanned flight of the Saturn V, carrying a Block I CSM on November 9, 1967. The capability of the Command Module's heat shield to survive a trans-lunar reentry was demonstrated by using the Service Module engine to ram it into the atmosphere at higher than the usual Earth-orbital reentry speed. This was followed on April 4, 1968, by Apollo 6 (AS-502) which carried a CSM and a LM Test Article as ballast. The intent of this mission was to achieve trans-lunar injection, followed closely by a simulated direct-return abort, using the Service Module engine to achieve another high-speed reentry. The Saturn V experienced pogo oscillation, a problem caused by non-steady engine combustion, which damaged fuel lines in the second and third stages. Two S-II engines shut down prematurely, but the remaining engines were able to compensate. The damage to the third stage engine was more severe, preventing it from restarting for trans-lunar injection. Mission controllers were able to use the Service Module engine to essentially repeat the flight profile of Apollo 4. Based on the good performance of Apollo 6 and identification of satisfactory fixes to the Apollo 6 problems, NASA declared the Saturn V ready to fly men, cancelling a third unmanned test.

Question: What was the technical name of the first unmanned Saturn V flight, Apollo 4?

Question: What was one thing that was specifically tested on the Apollo 4 test launch regarding the CM?

Question: When was Apollo 6, or AS-502, tested?

Question: What was cancelled by NASA after the Apollo 6 testing, after deeming the Saturn V ready to hold men?


Context: Apollo 5 (AS-204) was the first unmanned test flight of LM in Earth orbit, launched from pad 37 on January 22, 1968, by the Saturn IB that would have been used for Apollo 1. The LM engines were successfully test-fired and restarted, despite a computer programming error which cut short the first descent stage firing. The ascent engine was fired in abort mode, known as a "fire-in-the-hole" test, where it was lit simultaneously with jettison of the descent stage. Although Grumman wanted a second unmanned test, George Low decided the next LM flight would be manned.

Question: Which Apollo was the first testing of the LM, unmanned, in Earth's orbit?

Question: From what pad was Apollo 5 launched from?

Question: Who initially wanted more unmanned testing done regarding the LM?

Question: Was the testing of the LM during Apollo 5 a failure or a success?

Question: What was the nickname for the test where, during abort mode, the ascent engine was started and fired?


Context: Apollo 8 was planned to be the D mission in December 1968, crewed by McDivitt, Scott and Schweickart, launched on a Saturn V instead of two Saturn IBs. In the summer it had become clear that the LM would not be ready in time. Rather than waste the Saturn V on another simple Earth-orbiting mission, ASPO Manager George Low suggested the bold step of sending Apollo 8 to orbit the Moon instead, deferring the D mission to the next mission in March 1969, and eliminating the E mission. This would keep the program on track. The Soviet Union had sent animals around the Moon on September 15, 1968, aboard Zond 5, and it was believed they might soon repeat the feat with human cosmonauts. The decision was not announced publicly until successful completion of Apollo 7. Gemini veterans Frank Borman and James Lovell, and rookie William Anders captured the world's attention by making 10 lunar orbits in 20 hours, transmitting television pictures of the lunar surface on Christmas Eve, and returning safely to Earth.

Question: What type of Saturn was originally going to be used for Apollo 8?

Question: What spacecraft did the Soviets use to send animals to space and around the moon's orbit?

Question: On what day were images of the moon's surface transmitted to Earth via television images?

Question: What did Low suggest using Apollo 8 for instead of simply orbiting the Earth's surface?

Question: What did the Soviets intend to use in spacecraft after the success of Zond 5?


Context: The G mission was achieved on Apollo 11 in July 1969 by an all-Gemini veteran crew consisting of Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin. Armstrong and Aldrin performed the first landing at the Sea of Tranquility at 20:17:40 UTC on July 20, 1969. They spent a total of 21 hours, 36 minutes on the surface, and spent 2 hours, 31 minutes outside the spacecraft, walking on the surface, taking photographs, collecting material samples, and deploying automated scientific instruments, while continuously sending black-and-white television back to Earth. The astronauts returned safely on July 24.

Question: From what project did the Apollo 11 crew consist entirely of?

Question: In what month and year did the Apollo 11 mission occur?

Question: What did the astronauts on the moon send back to Earth live via signals?

Question: Who were the astronauts aboard the Apollo 11 mission?

Question: What day did the Apollo 11 crew return to Earth?


Context: In November 1969, Gemini veteran Charles "Pete" Conrad and rookie Alan L. Bean made a precision landing on Apollo 12 within walking distance of the Surveyor 3 unmanned lunar probe, which had landed in April 1967 on the Ocean of Storms. The Command Module Pilot was Gemini veteran Richard F. Gordon, Jr. Conrad and Bean carried the first lunar surface color television camera, but it was damaged when accidentally pointed into the Sun. They made two EVAs totaling 7 hours and 45 minutes. On one, they walked to the Surveyor, photographed it, and removed some parts which they returned to Earth.

Question: Charles Conrad and Alan Bean were on what spacecraft to the moon?

Question: Which lunar probe was near the Apollo 12 crew's landing site?

Question: What did the crew of Apollo 12 do with parts of the Surveyor they landed near after photographing them?

Question: What damaged the color TV camera that Apollo 12 had taken into space?


Context: The contracted batch of 15 Saturn Vs were enough for lunar landing missions through Apollo 20. NASA publicized a preliminary list of eight more planned landing sites, with plans to increase the mass of the CSM and LM for the last five missions, along with the payload capacity of the Saturn V. These final missions would combine the I and J types in the 1967 list, allowing the CMP to operate a package of lunar orbital sensors and cameras while his companions were on the surface, and allowing them to stay on the Moon for over three days. These missions would also carry the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) increasing the exploration area and allowing televised liftoff of the LM. Also, the Block II spacesuit was revised for the extended missions to allow greater flexibility and visibility for driving the LRV.

Question: What would the latter Apollo missions carry to the moon to increase exploration?

Question: What was redesigned to allow better maneuverability in the LRV?

Question: How many more landing sites for the Apollo missions did NASA have planned?

Question: How long would the astronauts be project to be able to stay on the moon for in the latter missions?

Question: What would have to be increased regarding the LM and CSM for the last five missions?


Context: The success of the first two landings allowed the remaining missions to be crewed with a single veteran as Commander, with two rookies. Apollo 13 launched Lovell, Jack Swigert, and Fred Haise in April 1970, headed for the Fra Mauro formation. But two days out, a liquid oxygen tank exploded, disabling the Service Module and forcing the crew to use the LM as a "life boat" to return to Earth. Another NASA review board was convened to determine the cause, which turned out to be a combination of damage of the tank in the factory, and a subcontractor not making a tank component according to updated design specifications. Apollo was grounded again, for the remainder of 1970 while the oxygen tank was redesigned and an extra one was added.

Question: What happened to the Apollo 13 crew to force them to use the LM as a "life boat" as it had been designed?

Question: Along with one veteran, what other two types of crew could be included in lieu of veterans after the successful landings of Apollo 11 and 12?

Question: What happened to the Apollo program in for the rest of 1970 after the incident regarding Apollo 13?

Question: What was redesigned during the Apollo program being grounded during 1970?

Question: What month and year was Apollo 13 launched?


Context: About the time of the first landing in 1969, it was decided to use an existing Saturn V to launch the Skylab orbital laboratory pre-built on the ground, replacing the original plan to construct it in orbit from several Saturn IB launches; this eliminated Apollo 20. NASA's yearly budget also began to shrink in light of the successful landing, and NASA also had to make funds available for the development of the upcoming Space Shuttle. By 1971, the decision was made to also cancel missions 18 and 19. The two unused Saturn Vs became museum exhibits at the John F. Kennedy Space Center on Merritt Island, Florida, George C. Marshall Space Center in Huntsville, Alabama, Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

Question: What Apollo mission was first cancelled due to not being needed to build the Skylab in space, as it was pre-built on the ground?

Question: What happened to NASA's budget after the first successful moon landing?

Question: After Apollo missions 18 and 19 were cancelled, what happened to the Saturn Vs that were never used?

Question: What year was the decision made to cancel Apollo missions 18 and 19?


Context: The rocks collected from the Moon are extremely old compared to rocks found on Earth, as measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.2 billion years for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar maria, to about 4.6 billion years for samples derived from the highlands crust. As such, they represent samples from a very early period in the development of the Solar System, that are largely absent on Earth. One important rock found during the Apollo Program is dubbed the Genesis Rock, retrieved by astronauts David Scott and James Irwin during the Apollo 15 mission. This anorthosite rock is composed almost exclusively of the calcium-rich feldspar mineral anorthite, and is believed to be representative of the highland crust. A geochemical component called KREEP was discovered, which has no known terrestrial counterpart. KREEP and the anorthositic samples have been used to infer that the outer portion of the Moon was once completely molten (see lunar magma ocean).

Question: How did the rocks on the moon compare to those on Earth?

Question: How old were some of the oldest rock samples found on the moon?

Question: What new component was found in certain rocks from the moon?

Question: What was the name of the rock found during the Apollo 15 mission that KREEP was discovered in?


Context: Almost all the rocks show evidence of impact process effects. Many samples appear to be pitted with micrometeoroid impact craters, which is never seen on Earth rocks, due to the thick atmosphere. Many show signs of being subjected to high pressure shock waves that are generated during impact events. Some of the returned samples are of impact melt (materials melted near an impact crater.) All samples returned from the Moon are highly brecciated as a result of being subjected to multiple impact events.

Question: As the moon has no atmosphere, what is prevalant in many moon rock samples brought back from Apollo missions?

Question: What do a great majority of rocks sampled from the moon show?

Question: What is impact melt that some samples of moon rocks show?


Context: In 2009, NASA held a symposium on project costs which presented an estimate of the Apollo program costs in 2005 dollars as roughly $170 billion. This included all research and development costs; the procurement of 15 Saturn V rockets, 16 Command/Service Modules, 12 Lunar Modules, plus program support and management costs; construction expenses for facilities and their upgrading, and costs for flight operations. This was based on a Congressional Budget Office report, A Budgetary Analysis of NASA's New Vision for Space, September 2004. The Space Review estimated in 2010 the cost of Apollo from 1959 to 1973 as $20.4 billion, or $109 billion in 2010 dollars.

Question: How much was NASA's procured spending on the Apollo project estimated to be at in 2005 after inflation?

Question: How many Saturn V rockets were produced by NASA during the Apollo project?

Question: How much was the Apollo project estimated to have cost from 1959 to 1973, the length of the program?


Context: Looking beyond the manned lunar landings, NASA investigated several post-lunar applications for Apollo hardware. The Apollo Extension Series (Apollo X,) proposed up to 30 flights to Earth orbit, using the space in the Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter (SLA) to house a small orbital laboratory (workshop). Astronauts would continue to use the CSM as a ferry to the station. This study was followed by design of a larger orbital workshop to be built in orbit from an empty S-IVB Saturn upper stage, and grew into the Apollo Applications Program (AAP). The workshop was to be supplemented by Apollo Telescope Missions, which would replace the LM's descent stage equipment and engine with a solar telescope observatory. The most ambitious plan called for using an empty S-IVB as an interplanetary spacecraft for a Venus fly-by mission.

Question: What did NASA name the series seeking up to 30 more flights to Earth's orbit?

Question: What did the acronym AAP stand for?

Question: What planet was named for a fly-by mission by an empty S-IVB?


Context: The S-IVB orbital workshop was the only one of these plans to make it off the drawing board. Dubbed Skylab, it was constructed complete on the ground rather than in space, and launched in 1973 using the two lower stages of a Saturn V. It was equipped with an Apollo Telescope Mount, the solar telescope that would have been used on the Apollo Telescope Missions. Skylab's last crew departed the station on February 8, 1974, and the station itself re-entered the atmosphere in 1979, by which time it had become the oldest operational Apollo-Saturn component.

Question: When was the Skylab launched?

Question: Was the Skylab assembled on Earth's surface or in space?

Question: When was Skylab's last crew on the station before it re-entered Earth's atmosphere?

Question: The Skylab had what type of equipment onboard that was supposed to be used in a different mission?


Context: In 2008, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's SELENE probe observed evidence of the halo surrounding the Apollo 15 Lunar Module blast crater while orbiting above the lunar surface. In 2009, NASA's robotic Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, while orbiting 50 kilometers (31 mi) above the Moon, began photographing the remnants of the Apollo program left on the lunar surface, and photographed each site where manned Apollo flights landed. All of the U. S. flags left on the Moon during the Apollo missions were found to still be standing, with the exception of the one left during the Apollo 11 mission, which was blown over during that mission's lift-off from the lunar surface and return to the mission Command Module in lunar orbit; the degree to which these flags retain their original colors remains unknown.

Question: Which NASA orbiter photographed evidence of each site on the moon that a manned Apollo mission landing occurred?

Question: The flags on the moon left by the U.S. manned Apollo missions are all still standing save for which mission's flag?

Question: Do the U.S. flags on the moon still have their original coloring or were they faded due to the Sun?


Context: The crew of Apollo 8 sent the first live televised pictures of the Earth and the Moon back to Earth, and read from the creation story in the Book of Genesis, on Christmas Eve, 1968. An estimated one-quarter of the population of the world saw—either live or delayed—the Christmas Eve transmission during the ninth orbit of the Moon. The mission and Christmas provided an inspiring end to 1968, which had been a troubled year for the US, marked by Vietnam War protests, race riots, and the assassinations of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

Question: What crew sent the first ever live images of the Earth and Moon to earth?

Question: From what Bible book did the crew of Apollo 8 read from during this stream of images?

Question: How much of the population of Earth ended up seeing the images of the Earth and the Moon?

Question: After an eventful and tiring year for the world during 1968, what type of ending to the year did the images from space provide?


Context: The Moon landing data was recorded by a special Apollo TV camera which recorded in a format incompatible with broadcast TV. This resulted in lunar footage that had to be converted for the live television broadcast and stored on magnetic telemetry tapes. During the following years, a magnetic tape shortage prompted NASA to remove massive numbers of magnetic tapes from the National Archives and Records Administration to be recorded over with newer satellite data. Stan Lebar, who led the team that designed and built the lunar television camera at Westinghouse Electric Corporation, also worked with Nafzger to try to locate the missing tapes.

Question: What type of camera was used to record the Moon landing?

Question: Was this footage compatible or incompatible with live broadcast TV formats?

Question: What happened to prompt NASA to record over archived magnetic tapes?

Question: What did NASA record over the older archived tapes?

Question: Who worked later on to find these missing magnetic tapes that had data stored on them?


Context: With a budget of $230,000, the surviving original lunar broadcast data from Apollo 11 was compiled by Nafzger and assigned to Lowry Digital for restoration. The video was processed to remove random noise and camera shake without destroying historical legitimacy. The images were from tapes in Australia, the CBS News archive, and kinescope recordings made at Johnson Space Center. The restored video, remaining in black and white, contains conservative digital enhancements and did not include sound quality improvements.

Question: Who compiled the original surviving Apollo 11 landing data?

Question: Were the tapes able to be restored and processed without destroying historical legitimacy or did some aspects of the tapes lose legitimacy?

Question: What types of recordings at Johnson Space Center were used to help restore the original tapes?

Question: Which company was tasked with trying to restore the original tapes?

Question: Were the restored tapes able to have color added to them to enhance the picture or did they remain black and white?


Context: Although the European Union does not have a codified constitution, like every political body it has laws which "constitute" its basic governance structure. The EU's primary constitutional sources are the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which have been agreed or adhered to among the governments of all 28 member states. The Treaties establish the EU's institutions, list their powers and responsibilities, and explain the areas in which the EU can legislate with Directives or Regulations. The European Commission has the initiative to propose legislation. During the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council (which are ministers from member state governments) and the European Parliament (elected by citizens) can make amendments and must give their consent for laws to pass. The Commission oversees departments and various agencies that execute or enforce EU law. The "European Council" (rather than the Council, made up of different government Ministers) is composed of the Prime Ministers or executive Presidents of the member states. It appoints the Commissioners and the board of the European Central Bank. The European Court of Justice is the supreme judicial body which interprets EU law, and develops it through precedent. The Court can review the legality of the EU institutions' actions, in compliance with the Treaties. It can also decide upon claims for breach of EU laws from member states and citizens.

Question: What are the two primary constitutional sources of the European Union?

Question: Who has the power to initiate legislation within the European Union?

Question: Who elects the members of the European Parliament?

Question: What court is able to interpret European Union law?

Question: What governing body appoints commissioners and the board of European Central Bank?


Context: Generally speaking, while all member states recognise that EU law takes primacy over national law where this agreed in the Treaties, they do not accept that the Court of Justice has the final say on foundational constitutional questions affecting democracy and human rights. In the United Kingdom, the basic principle is that Parliament, as the sovereign expression of democratic legitimacy, can decide whether it wishes to expressly legislate against EU law. This, however, would only happen in the case of an express wish of the people to withdraw from the EU. It was held in R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport that "whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary" and so "it has always been clear" that UK courts have a duty "to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law." More recently the UK Supreme Court noted that in R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, although the UK constitution is uncodified, there could be "fundamental principles" of common law, and Parliament "did not either contemplate or authorise the abrogation" of those principles when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972. The view of the German Constitutional Court from the Solange I and Solange II decisions is that if the EU does not comply with its basic constitutional rights and principles (particularly democracy, the rule of law and the social state principles) then it cannot override German law. However, as the nicknames of the judgments go, "so long as" the EU works towards the democratisation of its institutions, and has a framework that protects fundamental human rights, it would not review EU legislation for compatibility with German constitutional principles. Most other member states have expressed similar reservations. This suggests the EU's legitimacy rests on the ultimate authority of member states, its factual commitment to human rights, and the democratic will of the people.

Question: What do all member states agree takes precedence over national law?

Question: What issues do member states say the Court of Justice does not have the final say on?

Question: When was the European Communities Act created?

Question: What does the EU's legitimacy rest on?

Question: In what cases can the EU not override German law?


Context: While constitutional law concerns the European Union's governance structure, administrative law binds EU institutions and member states to follow the law. Both member states and the Commission have a general legal right or "standing" (locus standi) to bring claims against EU institutions and other member states for breach of the treaties. From the EU's foundation, the Court of Justice also held that the Treaties allowed citizens or corporations to bring claims against EU and member state institutions for violation of the Treaties and Regulations, if they were properly interpreted as creating rights and obligations. However, under Directives, citizens or corporations were said in 1986 to not be allowed to bring claims against other non-state parties. This meant courts of member states were not bound to apply an EU law where a national rule conflicted, even though the member state government could be sued, if it would impose an obligation on another citizen or corporation. These rules on "direct effect" limit the extent to which member state courts are bound to administer EU law. All actions by EU institutions can be subject to judicial review, and judged by standards of proportionality, particularly where general principles of law, or fundamental rights are engaged. The remedy for a claimant where there has been a breach of the law is often monetary damages, but courts can also require specific performance or will grant an injunction, in order to ensure the law is effective as possible.

Question: Which type of law makes EU institutions and its member states follow the law?

Question: During what year were citizens or corporations said to not be able to bring claims against other non state parties?

Question: Which actions by EU institutions can be subject to judicial review?

Question: Which type of law concerns the EU's governance structure?


Context: Although it is generally accepted that EU law has primacy, not all EU laws give citizens standing to bring claims: that is, not all EU laws have "direct effect". In Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen it was held that the provisions of the Treaties (and EU Regulations) are directly effective, if they are (1) clear and unambiguous (2) unconditional, and (3) did not require EU or national authorities to take further action to implement them. Van Gend en Loos, a postal company, claimed that what is now TFEU article 30 prevented the Dutch Customs Authorities charging tariffs, when it imported urea-formaldehyde plastics from Germany to the Netherlands. After a Dutch court made a reference, the Court of Justice held that even though the Treaties did not "expressly" confer a right on citizens or companies to bring claims, they could do so. Historically, international treaties had only allowed states to have legal claims for their enforcement, but the Court of Justice proclaimed "the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law". Because article 30 clearly, unconditionally and immediately stated that no quantitative restrictions could be placed on trade, without a good justification, Van Gend en Loos could recover the money it paid for the tariff. EU Regulations are the same as Treaty provisions in this sense, because as TFEU article 288 states, they are ‘directly applicable in all Member States’. Moreover, member states comes under a duty not to replicate Regulations in their own law, in order to prevent confusion. For instance, in Commission v Italy the Court of Justice held that Italy had breached a duty under the Treaties, both by failing to operate a scheme to pay farmers a premium to slaughter cows (to reduce dairy overproduction), and by reproducing the rules in a decree with various additions. "Regulations," held the Court of Justice, "come into force solely by virtue of their publication" and implementation could have the effect of "jeopardizing their simultaneous and uniform application in the whole of the Union." On the other hand, some Regulations may themselves expressly require implementing measures, in which case those specific rules should be followed.

Question: In which case was it held that the provisions of the treaties are directly effective if they are clear, unconditional, and don't require further action by EU or national authorities?

Question: Which TEFU article states that no quantitative restrictions can be placed on trade?

Question: What type of company is Van Gend en Loos?

Question: What are EU Regulations essentially the same as in the case mentioned?


Context: While the Treaties and Regulations will have direct effect (if clear, unconditional and immediate), Directives do not generally give citizens (as opposed to the member state) standing to sue other citizens. In theory, this is because TFEU article 288 says Directives are addressed to the member states and usually "leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods" to implement. In part this reflects that directives often create minimum standards, leaving member states to apply higher standards. For example, the Working Time Directive requires that every worker has at least 4 weeks paid holidays each year, but most member states require more than 28 days in national law. However, on the current position adopted by the Court of Justice, citizens have standing to make claims based on national laws that implement Directives, but not from Directives themselves. Directives do not have so called "horizontal" direct effect (i.e. between non-state parties). This view was instantly controversial, and in the early 1990s three Advocate Generals persuasively argued that Directives should create rights and duties for all citizens. The Court of Justice refused, but there are five large exceptions.

Question: What generally does not allow citizens to sue other citizens?

Question: How many paid holiday days does the Working Time directive require workers to have each year?

Question: How many paid holiday days do most member states require?

Question: When did the three Advocate Generals argue that Directives should create rights and duties for all citizens?


Context: First, if a Directive's deadline for implementation is not met, the member state cannot enforce conflicting laws, and a citizen may rely on the Directive in such an action (so called "vertical" direct effect). So, in Pubblico Ministero v Ratti because the Italian government had failed to implement a Directive 73/173/EEC on packaging and labelling solvents by the deadline, it was estopped from enforcing a conflicting national law from 1963 against Mr Ratti's solvent and varnish business. A member state could "not rely, as against individuals, on its own failure to perform the obligations which the Directive entails." Second, a citizen or company can invoke a Directive, not just in a dispute with a public authority, but in a dispute with another citizen or company. So, in CIA Security v Signalson and Securitel the Court of Justice held that a business called CIA Security could defend itself from allegations by competitors that it had not complied with a Belgian decree from 1991 about alarm systems, on the basis that it had not been notified to the Commission as a Directive required. Third, if a Directive gives expression to a "general principle" of EU law, it can be invoked between private non-state parties before its deadline for implementation. This follows from Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG where the German Civil Code §622 stated that the years people worked under the age of 25 would not count towards the increasing statutory notice before dismissal. Ms Kücükdeveci worked for 10 years, from age 18 to 28, for Swedex GmbH & Co KG before her dismissal. She claimed that the law not counting her years under age 25 was unlawful age discrimination under the Employment Equality Framework Directive. The Court of Justice held that the Directive could be relied on by her because equality was also a general principle of EU law. Third, if the defendant is an emanation of the state, even if not central government, it can still be bound by Directives. In Foster v British Gas plc the Court of Justice held that Mrs Foster was entitled to bring a sex discrimination claim against her employer, British Gas plc, which made women retire at age 60 and men at 65, if (1) pursuant to a state measure, (2) it provided a public service, and (3) had special powers. This could also be true if the enterprise is privatised, as it was held with a water company that was responsible for basic water provision.

Question: What happens first if a Directive's deadline for implementation is not met?

Question: What happens secondly if a Directive's deadline is not met?

Question: How long did Ms Kucukdeveci work for Swedex Gmbh & Co KG before she was dismissed?

Question: Which company did Mrs Foster work for?

Question: At what age did British Gas plc force their workers to retire?


Context: Fourth, national courts have a duty to interpret domestic law "as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the directive". Textbooks (though not the Court itself) often called this "indirect effect". In Marleasing SA v La Comercial SA the Court of Justice held that a Spanish Court had to interpret its general Civil Code provisions, on contracts lacking cause or defrauding creditors, to conform with the First Company Law Directive article 11, that required incorporations would only be nullified for a fixed list of reasons. The Court of Justice quickly acknowledged that the duty of interpretation cannot contradict plain words in a national statute. But, fifth, if a member state has failed to implement a Directive, a citizen may not be able to bring claims against other non-state parties, but can sue the member state itself for failure to implement the law. So, in Francovich v Italy, the Italian government had failed to set up an insurance fund for employees to claim unpaid wages if their employers had gone insolvent, as the Insolvency Protection Directive required. Francovich, the former employee of a bankrupt Venetian firm, was therefore allowed to claim 6 million Lira from the Italian government in damages for his loss. The Court of Justice held that if a Directive would confer identifiable rights on individuals, and there is a causal link between a member state's violation of EU and a claimant's loss, damages must be paid. The fact that the incompatible law is an Act of Parliament is no defence.

Question: Which courts have a duty to interpret domestic law as far as possible?

Question: What does the First Company Law Directive article 11 require?

Question: What did the Italian government fail to do in Francovich v Italy?

Question: How much money was Francovich allowed to claim from the Italian goverment in damages?


Context: The principles of European Union law are rules of law which have been developed by the European Court of Justice that constitute unwritten rules which are not expressly provided for in the treaties but which affect how European Union law is interpreted and applies. In formulating these principles, the courts have drawn on a variety of sources, including: public international law and legal doctrines and principles present in the legal systems of European Union member states and in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Accepted general principles of European Union Law include fundamental rights (see human rights), proportionality, legal certainty, equality before the law and subsidiarity.

Question: Which entity developed the principles of European Union Law?

Question: What are some of the accepted general principles of European Union law?


Context: Proportionality is recognised one of the general principles of European Union law by the European Court of Justice since the 1950s. According to the general principle of proportionality the lawfulness of an action depends on whether it was appropriate and necessary to achieve the objectives legitimately pursued. When there is a choice between several appropriate measures the least onerous must be adopted, and any disadvantage caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued. The principle of proportionality is also recognised in Article 5 of the EC Treaty, stating that "any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty".

Question: How long has Proportionality been recognized as one of the general principles of EU law?

Question: Where is the principle of proportionality recognized in the EC treaty?

Question: Which measure must be adopted when there is a choice between several?


Context: The concept of legal certainty is recognised one of the general principles of European Union law by the European Court of Justice since the 1960s. It is an important general principle of international law and public law, which predates European Union law. As a general principle in European Union law it means that the law must be certain, in that it is clear and precise, and its legal implications foreseeable, specially when applied to financial obligations. The adoption of laws which will have legal effect in the European Union must have a proper legal basis. Legislation in member states which implements European Union law must be worded so that it is clearly understandable by those who are subject to the law. In European Union law the general principle of legal certainty prohibits Ex post facto laws, i.e. laws should not take effect before they are published. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, which has its roots in the principles of legal certainty and good faith, is also a central element of the general principle of legal certainty in European Union law. The legitimate expectation doctrine holds that and that "those who act in good faith on the basis of law as it is or seems to be should not be frustrated in their expectations".

Question: How long has the concept of legal certainty been recognized as one of the general principles by the EU law?

Question: Which laws mentioned predate EU law?

Question: What must the adoption of laws which will have legal effect in the EU have?

Question: In what does the doctrine of legitimate expectations have roots?


Context: Fundamental rights, as in human rights, were first recognised by the European Court of Justice in the late 60s and fundamental rights are now regarded as integral part of the general principles of European Union law. As such the European Court of Justice is bound to draw inspiration from the constitutional traditions common to the member states. Therefore, the European Court of Justice cannot uphold measures which are incompatible with fundamental rights recognised and protected in the constitutions of member states. The European Court of Justice also found that "international treaties for the protection of human rights on which the member states have collaborated or of which they are signatories, can supply guidelines which should be followed within the framework of Community law."

Question: Where is the European Court of justice likely to get inspiration from?

Question: The European Court of Justice cannot uphold measures that are incompatible with what?


Context: None of the original treaties establishing the European Union mention protection for fundamental rights. It was not envisaged for European Union measures, that is legislative and administrative actions by European Union institutions, to be subject to human rights. At the time the only concern was that member states should be prevented from violating human rights, hence the establishment of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950 and the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Justice recognised fundamental rights as general principle of European Union law as the need to ensure that European Union measures are compatible with the human rights enshrined in member states' constitution became ever more apparent. In 1999 the European Council set up a body tasked with drafting a European Charter of Human Rights, which could form the constitutional basis for the European Union and as such tailored specifically to apply to the European Union and its institutions. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union draws a list of fundamental rights from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the Declaration on Fundamental Rights produced by the European Parliament in 1989 and European Union Treaties.

Question: How many original treaties establishing the EU protected fundamental rights?

Question: Which entities were originally concerned with preventing violation of human rights?

Question: When was the European Convention on Human Rights established?

Question: What other entity was established at the same time as the European Convention on Human Rights?

Question: When did the European Council task an entity with drafting a European Charter of Human Rights?


Context: The 2007 Lisbon Treaty explicitly recognised fundamental rights by providing in Article 6(1) that "The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adopted at Strasbourg on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties." Therefore, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has become an integral part of European Union law, codifying the fundamental rights which were previously considered general principles of European Union law. In effect, after the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter and the Convention now co-exist under European Union law, though the former is enforced by the European Court of Justice in relation to European Union measures, and the latter by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to measures by member states.

Question: When was the Lisbon Treaty established?

Question: What charter has become an important aspect of EU law?

Question: After the Lisbon treaty, the Charter and the Convention now co-exist under what?

Question: What entity enforces the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?


Context: The Social Chapter is a chapter of the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam covering social policy issues in European Union law. The basis for the Social Chapter was developed in 1989 by the "social partners" representatives, namely UNICE, the employers' confederation, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and CEEP, the European Centre of Public Enterprises. A toned down version was adopted as the Social Charter at the 1989 Strasbourg European Council. The Social Charter declares 30 general principles, including on fair remuneration of employment, health and safety at work, rights of disabled and elderly, the rights of workers, on vocational training and improvements of living conditions. The Social Charter became the basis for European Community legislation on these issues in 40 pieces of legislation.

Question: The Social Chapter is a chapter of what treaty?

Question: What year was the Treaty of Amsterdam created?

Question: When was the basis for the Social Chapter developed?

Question: How many general principles does the Social Charter declare?

Question: How many pieces of legislation has the Social Charter become the basis for?


Context: The Social Charter was subsequently adopted in 1989 by 11 of the then 12 member states. The UK refused to sign the Social Charter and was exempt from the legislation covering Social Charter issues unless it agreed to be bound by the legislation. The UK subsequently was the only member state to veto the Social Charter being included as the "Social Chapter" of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty - instead, an Agreement on Social Policy was added as a protocol. Again, the UK was exempt from legislation arising from the protocol, unless it agreed to be bound by it. The protocol was to become known as "Social Chapter", despite not actually being a chapter of the Maastricht Treaty. To achieve aims of the Agreement on Social Policy the European Union was to "support and complement" the policies of member states. The aims of the Agreement on Social Policy are:

Question: How many member states adopted the Social Charter in 1989?

Question: Which member state declined to sign the Social Charter?

Question: What title was the Social Charter set to be included into the Maastricht treaty under?

Question: What year was the Maastricht treaty signed?


Context: Following the election of the UK Labour Party to government in 1997, the UK formally subscribed to the Agreement on Social Policy, which allowed it to be included with minor amendments as the Social Chapter of the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam. The UK subsequently adopted the main legislation previously agreed under the Agreement on Social Policy, the 1994 Works Council Directive, which required workforce consultation in businesses, and the 1996 Parental Leave Directive. In the 10 years following the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam and adoption of the Social Chapter the European Union has undertaken policy initiatives in various social policy areas, including labour and industry relations, equal opportunity, health and safety, public health, protection of children, the disabled and elderly, poverty, migrant workers, education, training and youth.

Question: What lead to the UK to subscribe to the agreement on Social Policy?

Question: When did the UK formally subscribe to the Agreement on Social Policy?

Question: Which directive mentioned was created in 1994?

Question: When was the Parental Leave directive created?

Question: What did the Works Council Directive require?


Context: EU Competition law has its origins in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) agreement between France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany in 1951 following the second World War. The agreement aimed to prevent Germany from re-establishing dominance in the production of coal and steel as members felt that its dominance had contributed to the outbreak of the war. Article 65 of the agreement banned cartels and article 66 made provisions for concentrations, or mergers, and the abuse of a dominant position by companies. This was the first time that competition law principles were included in a plurilateral regional agreement and established the trans-European model of competition law. In 1957 competition rules were included in the Treaty of Rome, also known as the EC Treaty, which established the European Economic Community (EEC). The Treaty of Rome established the enactment of competition law as one of the main aims of the EEC through the "institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted". The two central provisions on EU competition law on companies were established in article 85, which prohibited anti-competitive agreements, subject to some exemptions, and article 86 prohibiting the abuse of dominant position. The treaty also established principles on competition law for member states, with article 90 covering public undertakings, and article 92 making provisions on state aid. Regulations on mergers were not included as member states could not establish consensus on the issue at the time.

Question: Which countries were the European Coal and Steel Community agreement between?

Question: What year was the ECSC agreement established?

Question: What did article 65 of the ECSC ban?

Question: Which article made provisions for concentrations or mergers and the abuse of a dominant position by companies?

Question: When were competition rules included in the Treaty of Rome?


Context: Today, the Treaty of Lisbon prohibits anti-competitive agreements in Article 101(1), including price fixing. According to Article 101(2) any such agreements are automatically void. Article 101(3) establishes exemptions, if the collusion is for distributional or technological innovation, gives consumers a "fair share" of the benefit and does not include unreasonable restraints that risk eliminating competition anywhere (or compliant with the general principle of European Union law of proportionality). Article 102 prohibits the abuse of dominant position, such as price discrimination and exclusive dealing. Article 102 allows the European Council to regulations to govern mergers between firms (the current regulation is the Regulation 139/2004/EC). The general test is whether a concentration (i.e. merger or acquisition) with a community dimension (i.e. affects a number of EU member states) might significantly impede effective competition. Articles 106 and 107 provide that member state's right to deliver public services may not be obstructed, but that otherwise public enterprises must adhere to the same competition principles as companies. Article 107 lays down a general rule that the state may not aid or subsidise private parties in distortion of free competition and provides exemptions for charities, regional development objectives and in the event of a natural disaster.

Question: In which article does the Treaty of Lisbon prohibit anti-competitive agreements?

Question: What does Article 102 of the Treaty of Lisbon prohibit?

Question: Which articles state that the member states' rights to deliver public services may not be obstructed?

Question: Which article allows the European Council to govern mergers between firms?


Context: While the concept of a "social market economy" was only introduced into EU law in 2007, free movement and trade were central to European development since the Treaty of Rome 1957. According to the standard theory of comparative advantage, two countries can both benefit from trade even if one of them has a less productive economy in all respects. Like in other regional organisations such as the North American Free Trade Association, or the World Trade Organisation, breaking down barriers to trade, and enhancing free movement of goods, services, labour and capital, is meant to reduce consumer prices. It was originally theorised that a free trade area had a tendency to give way to a customs union, which led to a common market, then monetary union, then union of monetary and fiscal policy, political and eventually a full union characteristic of a federal state. In Europe, however, those stages were considerably mixed, and it remains unclear whether the "endgame" should be the same as a state, traditionally understood. In practice free trade, without standards to ensure fair trade, can benefit some people and groups within countries (particularly big business) much more than others, but will burden people who lack bargaining power in an expanding market, particularly workers, consumers, small business, developing industries, and communities. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union articles 28 to 37 establish the principle of free movement of goods in the EU, while articles 45 to 66 require free movement of persons, services and capital. These so-called "four freedoms" were thought to be inhibited by physical barriers (e.g. customs), technical barriers (e.g. differing laws on safety, consumer or environmental standards) and fiscal barriers (e.g. different Value Added Tax rates). The tension in the law is that the free movement and trade is not supposed to spill over into a licence for unrestricted commercial profit. The Treaties limit free trade, to prioritise other values such as public health, consumer protection, labour rights, fair competition, and environmental improvement. Increasingly the Court of Justice has taken the view that the specific goals of free trade are underpinned by the general aims of the treaty for improvement of people's well being.

Question: When was the concept of a social market economy introduced into EU law?

Question: How long has free movement and trade been central to European development?

Question: Breaking down barriers to trade and enhancing the free movement of goods is meant to reduce what?

Question: What do the Treaties generally limit?

Question: What entity has taken the view that the goals of free trade are underpinned by the aims to improve people's well being?


Context: Free movement of goods within the European Union is achieved by a customs union, and the principle of non-discrimination. The EU manages imports from non-member states, duties between member states are prohibited, and imports circulate freely. In addition under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 34, ‘Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States’. In Procureur du Roi v Dassonville the Court of Justice held that this rule meant all "trading rules" that are "enacted by Member States" which could hinder trade "directly or indirectly, actually or potentially" would be caught by article 34. This meant that a Belgian law requiring Scotch whisky imports to have a certificate of origin was unlikely to be lawful. It discriminated against parallel importers like Mr Dassonville, who could not get certificates from authorities in France, where they bought the Scotch. This "wide test", to determine what could potentially be an unlawful restriction on trade, applies equally to actions by quasi-government bodies, such as the former "Buy Irish" company that had government appointees. It also means states can be responsible for private actors. For instance, in Commission v France French farmer vigilantes were continually sabotaging shipments of Spanish strawberries, and even Belgian tomato imports. France was liable for these hindrances to trade because the authorities ‘manifestly and persistently abstained' from preventing the sabotage. Generally speaking, if a member state has laws or practices that directly discriminate against imports (or exports under TFEU article 35) then it must be justified under article 36. The justifications include public morality, policy or security, "protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants", "national treasures" of "artistic, historic or archaeological value" and "industrial and commercial property." In addition, although not clearly listed, environmental protection can justify restrictions on trade as an overriding requirement derived from TFEU article 11. More generally, it has been increasingly acknowledged that fundamental human rights should take priority over all trade rules. So, in Schmidberger v Austria the Court of Justice held that Austria did not infringe article 34 by failing to ban a protest that blocked heavy traffic passing over the A13, Brenner Autobahn, en route to Italy. Although many companies, including Mr Schmidberger's German undertaking, were prevented from trading, the Court of Justice reasoned that freedom of association is one of the ‘fundamental pillars of a democratic society’, against which the free movement of goods had to be balanced, and was probably subordinate. If a member state does appeal to the article 36 justification, the measures it takes have to be applied proportionately. This means the rule must be pursue a legitimate aim and (1) be suitable to achieve the aim, (2) be necessary, so that a less restrictive measure could not achieve the same result, and (3) be reasonable in balancing the interests of free trade with interests in article 36.

Question: What helps the process of free movement of goods?

Question: What did did article 34 discriminate against in Procureur du Roi v Dassonville?

Question: Article 34 meant states could be responsible for what?

Question: In which case were French vigilantes sabotaging shipments of Spanish Strawberries?

Question: In Schmidberger v Austria, the Court of Justice came to the conclusion that Austria didn't infringe upon article 34 by failing to ban a what?


Context: Often rules apply to all goods neutrally, but may have a greater practical effect on imports than domestic products. For such "indirect" discriminatory (or "indistinctly applicable") measures the Court of Justice has developed more justifications: either those in article 36, or additional "mandatory" or "overriding" requirements such as consumer protection, improving labour standards, protecting the environment, press diversity, fairness in commerce, and more: the categories are not closed. In the most famous case Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopol für Branntwein, the Court of Justice found that a German law requiring all spirits and liqueurs (not just imported ones) to have a minimum alcohol content of 25 per cent was contrary to TFEU article 34, because it had a greater negative effect on imports. German liqueurs were over 25 per cent alcohol, but Cassis de Dijon, which Rewe-Zentrale AG wished to import from France, only had 15 to 20 per cent alcohol. The Court of Justice rejected the German government's arguments that the measure proportionately protected public health under TFEU article 36, because stronger beverages were available and adequate labelling would be enough for consumers to understand what they bought. This rule primarily applies to requirements about a product's content or packaging. In Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA the Court of Justice found that a Belgian law requiring all margarine to be in cube shaped packages infringed article 34, and was not justified by the pursuit of consumer protection. The argument that Belgians would believe it was butter if it was not cube shaped was disproportionate: it would "considerably exceed the requirements of the object in view" and labelling would protect consumers "just as effectively". In a 2003 case, Commission v Italy Italian law required that cocoa products that included other vegetable fats could not be labelled as "chocolate". It had to be "chocolate substitute". All Italian chocolate was made from cocoa butter alone, but British, Danish and Irish manufacturers used other vegetable fats. They claimed the law infringed article 34. The Court of Justice held that a low content of vegetable fat did not justify a "chocolate substitute" label. This was derogatory in the consumers' eyes. A ‘neutral and objective statement’ was enough to protect consumers. If member states place considerable obstacles on the use of a product, this can also infringe article 34. So, in a 2009 case, Commission v Italy, the Court of Justice held that an Italian law prohibiting motorcycles or mopeds pulling trailers infringed article 34. Again, the law applied neutrally to everyone, but disproportionately affected importers, because Italian companies did not make trailers. This was not a product requirement, but the Court reasoned that the prohibition would deter people from buying it: it would have "a considerable influence on the behaviour of consumers" that "affects the access of that product to the market". It would require justification under article 36, or as a mandatory requirement.

Question: What is the minimum percent of alcohol content a German law requires all spirits and liqueurs to have?

Question: Which country did Rewe-Zentrale AG wish to import from?

Question: Which year was the case Commission v Italy that dealt with cocoa products?

Question: All Italian chocolate is made from what alone?

Question: In the 2009 Commission v Italy, case, the Court of Justice held that an Italian low prohibiting what infringed article 34?


Context: In contrast to product requirements or other laws that hinder market access, the Court of Justice developed a presumption that "selling arrangements" would be presumed to not fall into TFEU article 34, if they applied equally to all sellers, and affected them in the same manner in fact. In Keck and Mithouard two importers claimed that their prosecution under a French competition law, which prevented them selling Picon beer under wholesale price, was unlawful. The aim of the law was to prevent cut throat competition, not to hinder trade. The Court of Justice held, as "in law and in fact" it was an equally applicable "selling arrangement" (not something that alters a product's content) it was outside the scope of article 34, and so did not need to be justified. Selling arrangements can be held to have an unequal effect "in fact" particularly where traders from another member state are seeking to break into the market, but there are restrictions on advertising and marketing. In Konsumentombudsmannen v De Agostini the Court of Justice reviewed Swedish bans on advertising to children under age 12, and misleading commercials for skin care products. While the bans have remained (justifiable under article 36 or as a mandatory requirement) the Court emphasised that complete marketing bans could be disproportionate if advertising were "the only effective form of promotion enabling [a trader] to penetrate" the market. In Konsumentombudsmannen v Gourmet AB the Court suggested that a total ban for advertising alcohol on the radio, TV and in magazines could fall within article 34 where advertising was the only way for sellers to overcome consumers' "traditional social practices and to local habits and customs" to buy their products, but again the national courts would decide whether it was justified under article 36 to protect public health. Under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the EU harmonised restrictions on restrictions on marketing and advertising, to forbid conduct that distorts average consumer behaviour, is misleading or aggressive, and sets out a list of examples that count as unfair. Increasingly, states have to give mutual recognition to each other's standards of regulation, while the EU has attempted to harmonise minimum ideals of best practice. The attempt to raise standards is hoped to avoid a regulatory "race to the bottom", while allowing consumers access to goods from around the continent.

Question: Which two importers claimed that under a French competition law, they were prevented from selling Picon beer under wholesale price?

Question: The aim of the French competition law was to do what?

Question: In which case did the Court of Justice review Swedish bans on advertising to young children under 12?

Question: Under which Directive did the EU harmonize restrictions on restrictions on marketing and advertising?


Context: Since its foundation, the Treaties sought to enable people to pursue their life goals in any country through free movement. Reflecting the economic nature of the project, the European Community originally focused upon free movement of workers: as a "factor of production". However, from the 1970s, this focus shifted towards developing a more "social" Europe. Free movement was increasingly based on "citizenship", so that people had rights to empower them to become economically and socially active, rather than economic activity being a precondition for rights. This means the basic "worker" rights in TFEU article 45 function as a specific expression of the general rights of citizens in TFEU articles 18 to 21. According to the Court of Justice, a "worker" is anybody who is economically active, which includes everyone in an employment relationship, "under the direction of another person" for "remuneration". A job, however, need not be paid in money for someone to be protected as a worker. For example, in Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, a German man claimed the right to residence in the Netherlands, while he volunteered plumbing and household duties in the Bhagwan community, which provided for everyone's material needs irrespective of their contributions. The Court of Justice held that Mr Steymann was entitled to stay, so long as there was at least an "indirect quid pro quo" for the work he did. Having "worker" status means protection against all forms of discrimination by governments, and employers, in access to employment, tax, and social security rights. By contrast a citizen, who is "any person having the nationality of a Member State" (TFEU article 20(1)), has rights to seek work, vote in local and European elections, but more restricted rights to claim social security. In practice, free movement has become politically contentious as nationalist political parties have manipulated fears about immigrants taking away people's jobs and benefits (paradoxically at the same time). Nevertheless, practically "all available research finds little impact" of "labour mobility on wages and employment of local workers".

Question: What have the Treaties sought to enable since its foundation?

Question: Which entity focused upon the free movement of workers?

Question: What was free movement increasingly based on?

Question: In which case did a German man claim the right to live in Netherlands where he was a volunteer plumber?

Question: What did the Court of Justice say Steymann was entitled to?


Context: The Free Movement of Workers Regulation articles 1 to 7 set out the main provisions on equal treatment of workers. First, articles 1 to 4 generally require that workers can take up employment, conclude contracts, and not suffer discrimination compared to nationals of the member state. In a famous case, the Belgian Football Association v Bosman, a Belgian footballer named Jean-Marc Bosman claimed that he should be able to transfer from R.F.C. de Liège to USL Dunkerque when his contract finished, regardless of whether Dunkerque could afford to pay Liège the habitual transfer fees. The Court of Justice held "the transfer rules constitute[d] an obstacle to free movement" and were unlawful unless they could be justified in the public interest, but this was unlikely. In Groener v Minister for Education the Court of Justice accepted that a requirement to speak Gaelic to teach in a Dublin design college could be justified as part of the public policy of promoting the Irish language, but only if the measure was not disproportionate. By contrast in Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA a bank in Bolzano, Italy, was not allowed to require Mr Angonese to have a bilingual certificate that could only be obtained in Bolzano. The Court of Justice, giving "horizontal" direct effect to TFEU article 45, reasoned that people from other countries would have little chance of acquiring the certificate, and because it was "impossible to submit proof of the required linguistic knowledge by any other means", the measure was disproportionate. Second, article 7(2) requires equal treatment in respect of tax. In Finanzamt Köln Altstadt v Schumacker the Court of Justice held that it contravened TFEU art 45 to deny tax benefits (e.g. for married couples, and social insurance expense deductions) to a man who worked in Germany, but was resident in Belgium when other German residents got the benefits. By contrast in Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg the Court of Justice rejected Mr Weigel's claim that a re-registration charge upon bringing his car to Austria violated his right to free movement. Although the tax was "likely to have a negative bearing on the decision of migrant workers to exercise their right to freedom of movement", because the charge applied equally to Austrians, in absence of EU legislation on the matter it had to be regarded as justified. Third, people must receive equal treatment regarding "social advantages", although the Court has approved residential qualifying periods. In Hendrix v Employee Insurance Institute the Court of Justice held that a Dutch national was not entitled to continue receiving incapacity benefits when he moved to Belgium, because the benefit was "closely linked to the socio-economic situation" of the Netherlands. Conversely, in Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen the Court of Justice held that a Dutch woman living in the Netherlands, but working between 3 and 14 hours a week in Germany, did not have a right to receive German child benefits, even though the wife of a man who worked full-time in Germany but was resident in Austria could. The general justifications for limiting free movement in TFEU article 45(3) are "public policy, public security or public health", and there is also a general exception in article 45(4) for "employment in the public service".

Question: Which articles of the Free Movement of Workers Regulation set out the primary provisions on equal treatment of workers?

Question: Which Belgian footballer claimed that he should be allowed to transfer from one football club to another when his contract was fulfilled?

Question: What language did the Court of Justice accept to be required to teach in a Dublin college in Groner v Minister for Education?

Question: In which case was a Dutch national not entitled to continue receiving benefits when he moved to Belgium?

Question: In the case Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, how many hours was the Dutch woman in question working in Germany?