Cases Flashcards
Costa v ENEL
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
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft
Doctrine of supremacy: EU law has primacy over national constitutional law
Simmenthal
Doctrine of supremacy: all national courts must apply EU law, even non-constitutional ones
Factortame
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
Van Gend en Loos
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.
What are the principles for direct effect?
Van Gend en Loos: treaty articles can have direct effect if they are clear, precise and unconditional.
Defrenne v SABENA
Vertical/horizontal direct effect: the Article in question was mandatory - the court held that this meant it extended to contracts between private individuals
Van Duyn
A directive can have vertical direct effect
Ratti
A MS cannot rely on its own failure to perform its obligations required by a directive (i.e. if the implementation period has elapsed)
Inter-Environment Wallonie
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
Marshall
Directives have only vertical DI (i.e. only binding on the MS)
Fratelli Constanza
Who is the state? Regional authorities/local council is included
Foster
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
NUT v St Marys
Schools are organs of the State
Dori
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
Van Colson
Indirect effect: harmonious interpretation - national courts are to interpret national law in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive
Mangold
implementation period has not expired, but might be able to rely on a GPL
CIA Security
Indirect Effect
Fedesa
Proportionality: Art 5(4) TEU: EU law not to exceed what is appropriate and necessary to achieve a given objective
Rewe
State Liability: autonomy of procedure and equivalence - these procedures/conditions are to be no less favourable than those governing similar actions within national law
Francovich
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
Brasserie/Factortame
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
Koebler
State Liability = state organs, which can include the national courts
ex parte BT
The Directive was not clear, or precise enough, so misinterpretation excusable - not sufficiently serious breach
