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;
28 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Directives have direct effect where Van Gend criteria apply
|
Van Duyn v Home Office [1974]
|
|
|
Able to rely on directive only when time limit for implementation has passed |
Pubblico Ministero v Ratti [1979] |
|
|
Directive may not of itself impose obligations on an individual and provision of a directive may not be relied upon against individuals
|
Marshall v Southampton & SW Hampshire Area Health Authority [1986]
|
|
|
Emanation of the state is organisation or body under statutory duty to provide public service, subject to authority or control of the State or have special powers above normal rules
|
Foster v British Gas [1990]
|
|
|
Nationalised company not automatically an emanation of the state
|
Doughty v Rolls Royce plc [1992]
|
|
|
Organisations providing public service pursuant to statutory duty and possessing special powers likely to be found an emanation of the state
|
Griffin v South West Water Services Ltd [1995]
|
|
|
Not necessary to satisfy all Foster criteria to be emanation of the state
|
NUT v Governing Body of St Mary’s Church of England Junior School [1997]
|
|
|
National courts are required to interpret national law in light of wording and purposes of Directive |
Van Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] |
|
|
Indirect effect had clear impact on the UK
|
Pickstone v Freemans plc [1988] - interpreted amendments to Equal Pay Act 1970 against literal meaning, work of equal value AND Lister v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Ltd [1989] - Lords read words into transfer of undertakings regulation (protected workers)
|
|
|
Initial reluctance to use indirect effect where statute not intended to implement directive
|
Duke v GEC Reliance [1988] - Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and 1976 Directive
|
|
|
National courts should apply purposive approach to non-implementing legislation
|
Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA [1990]
|
|
|
Application of Marleasing to UK
|
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd [1995] - read 1976 Directive into Sex Discrimination Act 1975
|
|
|
Where national legislation clearly conflicts with Directive, cannot rely on indirect effect
|
Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garantia Salarial [1993]
|
|
|
Where indirect effect would impose criminal liability, cannot rely on Directive
|
Luciano Arcaro [1996]
|
|
|
Member State can be required to pay compensation to individuals for damage suffered as result of Member State failing to implement directive |
Francovich v Italian State [1991] - three conditions: result prescribed by directive should entail grant of rights to individuals, should be possible to identify content of rights and should be a causal link between breach of obligation and loss and damage suffered by injured parties |
|
|
Modification of Francovich principles AND breach can be a legislative act
|
Brasserie du Pecheur v Germany, Factortame No 4 [1996]: extended Francovich principle beyond failure to implement Directive, made it necessary for claimant to prove Member State’s breach was sufficiently serious (BUT not in non-implementation cases)
|
|
|
Factors for sufficiently serious AND incorrect implementation of Directive can breach
|
R v HM Treasury, ex p British Telecommunications [1996] - question clear or vague? Has Commission given any guidance? Has ECJ given any guidance in case law? Had other Member States made same mistake?
|
|
|
Sufficiently serious breach would occur if Member State manifestly and gravely disregarded limits on rulemaking powers
|
Dillenkofer and others v Germany [1996] - where little discretion, mere infringement might amount to sufficiently serious breach AND Francovich test can be safely used where non-implementation is issue
|
|
|
Administrative acts can breach EU Law for state liability
|
R v MAFF, ex p Hedley Lomas [1996]
|
|
|
More likely to be a breach where state ignores concerns about legislation
|
Factortame No 5 [1999]
|
|
|
Treaty article may have direct effect if |
Van Gend criteria apply, Horizontal - Defrenne v SABENA Vertical - Van Gend |
|
|
Regulation may have direct effect if |
Van Gend criteria apply -Vertical - Leonesio -Horizontal - Antonio Munoz |
|
|
Regulation may have direct effect if |
Van Gend criteria apply -Vertical - Leonesio -Horizontal - Antonio Munoz |
|
|
For indirect effect, reading in to non-implementing can be tenuous |
Lord Keith in Webb |
|
|
National courts required to interpret national law in light of wording and purpose of directive |
Article 4(3) TEU |
|
|
Limits to indirect effect |
- Conflict - Wagner Miret - Imposition of criminal liability - Luciano Arcaro |
|
|
Definition of sufficiently serious |
Manifestly and gravely disregarded limits on rule making powers - Dillenkofer |
|
|
Confirmation that directives do not have direct effect |
Faccini Dori |
