Chapter 21- EU law Flashcards
What is Macarthys Ltd v Smith case and what area of law does it relate to?
-Smiths employers paid her less than her male predecessor for the same job
-the 2 weren’t employed at the same time, there was no breach of English domestic law
-BUT Smith could claim that her employer was in breach of Article 157 over equal pay
-This was confirmed by the Court of Justice of the EU
(Vertical direct effect- treaties)
What happens in Diocese of Hallam Trustee v Connaughton and what area of law does it relate to?
-Employment Appeal Tribunal had to consider facts which had similarity to the Smith case
-Connaughton was employed as a director of music
-When she left the job was advertised more than her previous salary, with a man eventually earning just under double her wage
-In other words her immediate successor received a considerably higher wage than her
-The tribunal considered Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and decided that its provisions were wide enough to allow her to make a claim
(treaties-UK can apply European treaty law immediately
What happened in Re Tachographs: Commission v UK and what area of law does it apply to?
-Regulation for equipment to be installed in lorries was issued
-UK gov decided not to implement it and leave it up to the lorry driver
-When referred to the EU it was held that Member States had no discretion in the case of Regulations
-Wording of article 288 was explicit and meant all Regulations were automatically law in all Member States
(Regulations)
What happened in Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority and what area of law does it apply to?
-Required to retire at 62 when men doing the same job didn’t have to until 65
-Under Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in English Law this wasn’t discriminatory
-BUT was able to succeed in an action of unfair dismissal by relying on the Equal Treatment Directive
-This directive hadn’t been fully implemented in the UK
-Court of Justice of the EU held it was sufficiently clear and imposed obligations on the Member State
-This allowed her to succeed in her claim as her employers were ‘arm of the state’
(Vertical direct effect)
What happened in Francovich v Italian Republic and what area of law does it apply to?
-The Italian gov failed to implement a Directive aimed at protecting wages of employees whose employer became insolvent
-Francovich employer went into liquidation owing him wages which he was unable to get
-he sued the state for his financial loss
-Court of Justice held that he was entitled to compensation
(Actions against the State for failure to implement a Directive)
