Cases

Question 1

Costa v ENEL

Answer 1

Doctrine of supremacy - the EEC has created its own legal system, and MS have limited their sovereign rights.
The executive force of EU law cannot vary between MS, without jeopardising the attainment of treaty objectives

Question 2

Internationale Handelsgesellschaft

Answer 2

Doctrine of supremacy: EU law has primacy over national constitutional law

Question 3

Simmenthal

Answer 3

Doctrine of supremacy: all national courts must apply EU law, even non-constitutional ones

Question 4

Factortame

Answer 4

UK courts acceptance of the doctrine of supremacy: ECA 1972 Act: limited UK’s sovereignty.
If a national law interferes with the effectiveness of an EU provision, then the national law is to be set aside

Question 5

Van Gend en Loos

Answer 5

Introduced the doctrine of direct effect - the Courts said that the Community was a new legal order of international law, and bound and conferred rights on individuals as well as the MS.

Question 6

What are the principles for direct effect?

Answer 6

Van Gend en Loos: treaty articles can have direct effect if they are clear, precise and unconditional.

Question 7

Defrenne v SABENA

Answer 7

Vertical/horizontal direct effect: the Article in question was mandatory - the court held that this meant it extended to contracts between private individuals

Question 8

Van Duyn

Answer 8

A directive can have vertical direct effect

Question 9

Ratti

Answer 9

A MS cannot rely on its own failure to perform its obligations required by a directive (i.e. if the implementation period has elapsed)

Question 10

Inter-Environment Wallonie

Answer 10

During the implementation period for a directive, the MS must refrain from enacting any laws which would seriously compromise/conflict with the result required of the directive

Question 11

Marshall

Answer 11

Directives have only vertical DI (i.e. only binding on the MS)

Question 12

Fratelli Constanza

Answer 12

Who is the state? Regional authorities/local council is included

Question 13

Foster

Answer 13

Direct effect of directives:
Organ of the state if it has been made responsible for providing a service it is under the control of the state, and has special powers beyond those which result from normal contractual rules between individuals

Question 14

NUT v St Marys

Answer 14

Schools are organs of the State

Question 15

Dori

Answer 15

No horizontal effect of directives - if there was, then the difference between a directive and regulation (directly applicable) would become blurred, and there wouldn’t be much point in them being different

Question 16

Van Colson

Answer 16

Indirect effect: harmonious interpretation - national courts are to interpret national law in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive

Question 17

Mangold

Answer 17

implementation period has not expired, but might be able to rely on a GPL

Question 18

CIA Security

Answer 18

Indirect Effect

Question 19

Fedesa

Answer 19

Proportionality: Art 5(4) TEU: EU law not to exceed what is appropriate and necessary to achieve a given objective

Question 20

Rewe

Answer 20

State Liability: autonomy of procedure and equivalence - these procedures/conditions are to be no less favourable than those governing similar actions within national law

Question 21

Francovich

Answer 21

State Liability for Directives - provided 3 conditions are fulfilled:
The directive must grant rights to individuals
It must be possible to identify the content of those rights from the provisions of the directive
There must be a causal link between the breach, and the damage suffered by the individual

Question 22

Brasserie/Factortame

Answer 22

Three conditions for state liability for Directives (can be claimed for all MS breaches, regardless of which organ of the state created the breach):
The law must confer rights on individuals
It must have been a sufficiently serious breach (manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion)
There must be a direct causal link between the breach, and the damage suffered

Question 23

Koebler

Answer 23

State Liability = state organs, which can include the national courts

Question 24

ex parte BT

Answer 24

The Directive was not clear, or precise enough, so misinterpretation excusable - not sufficiently serious breach

Question 25

Denkavit

Answer 25

The Directive was complex, so misinterpretation was excusable

Question 26

ex parte Hedley Thomas

Answer 26

The Treaty language was clear, and left no discretion on the UK, so was sufficiently serious breach

Question 27

Dillenkofer v Germany

Answer 27

Failure to implement the directive within the time limit = sufficiently serious breach