Directives

Front 1

Art 288 TFEU

Back 1

- Shall be binding upon each MS to which it is addressed, but implementation left to them.

Front 2

Van Duyn v Home Office 1974

Back 2

- UK tried to exclude V from Uk due to scientologist views. - Could directive against this be directly enforced? - directive to have direct effect it must - be clear and precise - be unconditional/without exceptions. - not require any implementation by MS -refused on public good still -functional argument that would weaken if did not allow.

Front 3

Ratti 1979

Back 3

-R’s packaging did not comply with Italian law, but did with EU before directive implementation date. - ECJ held R could be prosecuted. - only direct effect after time limit had elapsed of implemented incorrectly - as long as clear, precise and unconditional - Estoppel against the state as they are wrong.

Front 4

Marshall v Southampton HA 1986

Back 4

- Marshall was dismissed at 60 and wanted to rely on equal treatment directive saying men could work till 65 - - 288 shows whole part of directive is just obligation for the state. - ECJ held could rely on as HA counts as being part of state as is public authority.

Front 5

Foster v British Gas 1990

Back 5

- F was required to retire at 60, whilst men could work till 65. - Claimed B did not comply with equal treatment directive - “body made responsible by state for providing pblic service and has special powers beyond those which result from normal rules applicable.. is included of a directive capable of having direct effect”

Front 6

Faccini Dori 1994

Back 6

- P entered into language course but sort to cancel after 4 days. - directive gave them 7 days to cancel it If negotiated away from business premise. - Italy had no implemented 5 years after deadline. - could not rely against a private body. - AG Lenz – “equality of competition” and “ fundamental right of prohibition of discrimination” “wrong to if the aim is for internal markets. “ – uniform application of community law.

Front 7

Van Colson and Kamanh 1986

Back 7

- 2 female social workers wanted rights from equal treatment direct. - courts are part of state so under obligation to interpret national law in line with EU. -indirect effect in courts

Front 8

Marleasing 1990

Back 8

- Directive said 7 grounds for nullity of company, 8 in Spanish laws. - action between 2 private companies. - ECJ says in applying national law before or after, national court need to in light and wording of directive. -Needs national law to exist to reinterpret - have to contort national to reach directive.

Front 9

Luciano Arcaro 1996

Back 9

- A was prosecuted and was not guilty under Italian legislation, but was under directive. - ECJ said cannot impose criminal liability. - limits of natural language -non-imposition of criminal liability. - non-retroactivity

Front 10

Inter-environnement Wallonie 1997

Back 10

-Legislation on development didn’t do environmental impact assessment as laid out in directive. - Held that this was wrong and during the time limit, the MS should not take measures that comprise result of directive

Front 11

Adeneler 2006

Back 11

-18 greek employees on fixed term contracts. - Directive against these not implemented till after time limit. - Did it come into effect from date published/had to be done/when domestic leg did it? - Held only effective fro the date that it was meant to be transposed.

Front 12

CIA Security v Signalson 1996

Back 12

Two manufacturers of burglar alarms. - one claimed liable from other from not complying with leg. -Belgium had not notified commission on legislation - ECJ says should have been notified and does not apply. - Incidental effect as effects private parties incidentally being effected.

Front 13

Mangold 2005

Back 13

- M had fixed term contract. -Directive stopped that - Clash between German law and directive. - ECJ said general principle of EU law so can have horizontal effect. - Prohibition discrimination

Front 14

AMS 2014

Back 14

- Horizontal effect of worker’s rights to information in art 27 and a directive. - AMS did not except L’s nomination. - Mangold principle did not apply as was wording of Art 27 was too open. - AG thought should law horizontal effect if principle of EU law, court disagreed though. -