Ec Wksp 2

Front 1

Van Duyn v Home Office

Back 1

Directives can have direct effect if the terms on the directive relied upon are clear, precise, and unconditional

Front 2

Pubblico Ministero v Ratti

Back 2

Can only rely on direct effect for directives if the time limit for implementation has passed.

Front 3

Marshall v Southamton and SW Hampshire Health Authority

Back 3

Established that directive can be used against a public authority in their capacity as employer

Front 4

Foster v British Gas

Back 4

Definied a public body for the purpose of vertical direct effect of a directive

Front 5

Foster criteria

Back 5

To be a 'emanation of the state' a body must:
a. be under a statutory duty to provide a public service
b. be under state control; and
c. have special powers

Front 6

Griffin v South West Water Services Ltd

Back 6

For 'state control' under Foster criteria organization needn't be state controlled it is sufficient for the industry to be regulated by the state.

Front 7

NUT v St. Mary's

Back 7

Foster criteria mere guidelines and not all three have to be satisified.

Front 8

Van Colson and Kamann v Land Nodrhein-WEstfalen

Back 8

Developed indirect effect for directives, national courts must ensure that they interpret national law in such a way as to ensure that the objectives of a directive are fulfilled.

Front 9

Pickstone v Freemans plc;
Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Ltd

Back 9

Examples of the House of Lords interpreting UK legislation outside of its literal meaning in order to comply with EC directives.

Front 10

Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA

Back 10

Extended Van Colson. National COurts should apply the purposive approach even to non-implementing legislation 'in so far as this is possible'.

Front 11

Webb v EMO Air Cargo

Back 11

UK case, Lord Keith implemented Von Colson and Marleasing by saying that UK was only obligated to interpret national law in accordance with directives if it was possible to do so.

Front 12

Wagner Mret v Fondo de Garantia Salarial

Back 12

The national courts would apply national law when it was not possible to interpret it in lines with the EC directive.

Front 13

Luciano Arcaro

Back 13

A MS can't rely on indirect effect to impose criminal liability on an individual on the basis of a directive which the state has failed to implement or implement correctly.

Front 14

Francovich v Italian State

Back 14

Outlined the conditions that must be satisfied to make a MS liable in damages for failure to implement a directive.

Front 15

Francovich conditions

Back 15

1. Result prescribed by the directive should entail the grant of rights to the individual.
2. Should be possible to ID the content of these rights on the basis of the provisions of the directive.
3. Existence of a causal link between the breach of the State's obligation and the loss and damage suffered by the injured parties.

Front 16

Brasserie du Pecheur/Factortame

Back 16

Modifeid Francovich conditions:
- Extended to any type of EC law breach (not solely to directives)
- Where MS has wide discretion C must prove that breach of EC law was 'sufficiently serious'

Front 17

Dillenkofer and Others v Germany

Back 17

Where states have narrow limits in applying EC directive and fail to do so that in itself may amount to a sufficiently serious breach.

Front 18

Costa v ENEL

Back 18

Affirmed supremacy of EC law over national law

Front 19

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft

Back 19

EC law has priority over MSs constitutions

Front 20

Factortame (No 4)

Back 20

The fact that English law didn't allow a court to grant an injunction against the Crown could not be allowed to stand in the way of the supremacy of EC law.

Front 21

R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secratory of State for Health, ex p Fedesa and others

Back 21

ECJ provided a definition of proportionality

Front 22

Definition of proportionality

Back 22

1. Measure must be appropriate or suitable to achieve the desired objective
2. It must also be nessacary to achieve the desired objective
3. It must not go further than is required to achieve the desired objective.

Front 23

R v Kirk

Back 23

Retroactive enforcement of EC law not allowed.