Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
24 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Article 288 |
A directive is binding as to the result to be achieved but shall leave it to member states to chose the form and method for implementation |
|
|
What case indicates that directives are capable of direct effect |
Van duyn |
|
|
What does a directive need to satisfy to be directly affective? |
Van gend criteria (van duyn) Date of implementation expired (ratti) Must be a state or public body (Marshall) |
|
|
Which case defined state? |
Foster v British Gas |
|
|
What was the Marshall case about? |
Provisions of the equal treatment directive being capable of direct effect against a public body |
|
|
What case clarified foster v British Gas? |
Griffin v south west water |
|
|
What is the principle of in-direct effect? |
The von colson principle |
|
|
What was the von colson principle about? |
sex discrimination. Couldn't rely on directive because it didn't fulfil van gend criteria |
|
|
So what is the principle of indirect effect? |
That eu law is not applied to directly to the case but indirectly by means of interpretation of domestic law in accordance with EU law |
|
|
What is implementing legislation |
Legislation passed after the deadline to implement the directive has expired |
|
|
What is implementing legislation |
Legislation passed after the deadline to implement the directive has expired (lister v dry dock) uk courts did use the purposive approach! |
|
|
What is non implementing legislation? |
Legislation passed before the deadline to implement the directive has expired (duke v GEC reliance) purposive approach couldn't be used. |
|
|
What did the ECJ court hold in Marleasing? |
That the national court must interpret national law in light of any relevant directive as far as it is possible to do so! (Doesn't matter is adopted before or after) |
|
|
What case confirmed marleasing in the English court |
Webb v EMO air cargo |
|
|
In what case was a limit to indirect effect shown in? |
Wagner! (National legislation clearly conflicts with relevant directive) |
|
|
An example of limitation to indirect effect where indirect effect would impose criminal liability.. |
Luciano |
|
|
Case for state liability (non implementation!!) |
Francovich |
|
|
Explain francovich |
It was ruled the Member state should pay comp to an individual for damage suffered as a result on the states failure to implement a directive - subject to conditions! |
|
|
Where does the states obligation to implement come from? |
Article 4 TEU |
|
|
What are the conditions in francovich? |
- direct grants rights to individuals - able to identify context of these rights - casual link between failure and loss |
|
|
Explain factortame |
Factortame extended francovich principle beyond failure to implement to breaches of EU law. It also altered the conditions to sufficiently serious |
|
|
Explain factortame |
Factortame extended francovich principle beyond failure to implement to breaches of EU law. It also altered the conditions to sufficiently serious |
|
|
What case was not sufficiently serious? |
British telecommunications - incorrect implementation! |
|
|
Explain the dillenkofer case |
Failure to implement in itself is sufficiently serious |
