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;
27 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Member state must ensure their obligations regarding attaining the objectives of the treaties in ? |
TEU 4 |
|
|
Requirement to satisfy direct effect ? |
Clear and precise, unconditional and no room for discretion in application |
|
|
TEU 6 recognises ? |
Rights and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights to have same legal value as the Treaties and acceding to ECHR |
|
|
A regulation ? |
Shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable across all member states |
|
|
A directive ....? |
Shall be binding as to the result to be achieved upon each member state to which it is addressed but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods |
|
|
Horizontal direct effect of treaty articles from ? |
Defrenne v SABENA (1976) |
|
|
Regulations have vde because ? |
Leonesio v Italian ministry of agriculture (1972) |
|
|
Regulations have hde because ? |
Antonio Munoz Cia SA v Frumar Ltd (2002) |
|
|
Case that permitted directives to have hde ? |
Van duyn v home office (1974) |
|
|
Rules for direct effect for directives ? |
Van gend, ratti, foster |
|
|
Rule in Publicco Minister v Ratti (1979) ? |
Implementation date for the directive must have passed |
|
|
Case that stated no horizontal direct effect for directives ? |
Marshall v Southampton & SW Hants Area Health Authority (1986) |
|
|
Case that confirmed concretely that directives have no hde ? |
Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl (1994) |
|
|
Conditions in Foster v British Gas (1990) ? |
Provides public service, under the control of the State, granted special powers for the purpose |
|
|
Conditions to satisfy state liability from ? |
Francovich v Italian State (1991) as amended by Brasserie de Pecheur/Facttortame (3) (1996) |
|
|
Conditions to satisfy state liability are.. ? |
Law must confer rights on individual, sufficiently serious breach, must be a causal link between breach and damage sustained |
|
|
Case that established principle of indirect effect ? |
Von colson and kamann v Land Nordrhein Westfalen (1984) |
|
|
Case that established a sufficiently serious breach being failure to implement a directive ? |
Francovich or Dillenkofer and others v Germany (1996) |
|
|
Case that established defective implementation of a directive qualifies as a sufficiently serious breach ? |
R v HM Treasury ex p BT (1996) |
|
|
Case that established an administrative failure like failing to grant expert licenses constituted a serious breach leaving the state liable ? |
Rv MAFF ex p Hadley Lomas (1996) |
|
|
Case that established legislative acts qualified as serious breach ? |
Bdp Factortame (1996) |
|
|
Case that any national legislation must be interpreted in the light of a directive as far as possible ? |
Marleasing SA v LA Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA (1990) |
|
|
Case where it was said that a Marleasing style purposive approach to interpretation would not be allowed in a way that might lead to a "distortion" yet interpreted earlier legislation purposively ? |
Webb v EMO Air Cargo Ltd (1994) |
|
|
Case that would not allow non implementing legislation to be interpreted in the light of a directive to "give the result sought by the claimant" ? |
Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garantia Salarial (1993) |
|
|
In which UK case did Templeman say he would not use Von Colson in a way that would distort legislation ? |
Duke v GEC Reliance (1988) |
|
|
Case where purposive approach to give effect to the Transfer of Undertakings Directive by allowing implied words to be 'written into' the implementing SI for it ? |
Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1989) |
|
|
Case where "or work of equal value" purposively worked into the statute alongside "equal pay For equal work" to fulfil TEU 4 obligations in light of a directive ? |
Pickstone v Freemans Plc (1989) |
