Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

EU Law > Direct Effect > Flashcards

Direct Effect Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Principle of supremacy

A

EU law is supreme over national law of Member States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Source of supremacy principle

A

Van Gend en Loos

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Purpose of the supremacy principle

A

If not, terms and spirit of the Treaty will be overriden (Costa v ENEL)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

National courts’ obligations

A

a) Apply Community law in entirely and protect rights conferred on EU citizens
b) Set aside any provision of national law which may conflict, whether prior or subsequent to Community rule
(Simmental (No. 2))

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Prevalence of supremacy principle during proceedings

A

Pending final determination, national court must suspend national legislation (Factortame (No.2))

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Scope of supremacy principle

A

Extends beyond national courts, to admin agencies, in disapplying conflicting national law (Larsy)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Role of national Constitutional Courts

A

National courts must refuse to apply conflicting provisions of national law, irrespective of judgement of national Constitutional Court (Filipiak)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Direct effect doctrine

A

Ability of individuals to invoke provisions of Community law (which create rights and obligations for individuals) in national courts (Van Gend en Loos)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Vertical versus horizontal direct effect

A

Vertical: against MS by Commission/individual
Horizontal: against another individual/entity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Conditions for enforcement of direct effect doctrine

A

Unconditional and sufficiently precise (Becker)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Definition of ‘sufficiently precise’

A

Unequivocal terms (Marshall I)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Definition of ‘unconditional’

A

Depend upon no further action or discretion by national or EU authorities (Molkerei-Zentrale)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Application of conditions for direct effect

A

a) Relaxed (Reyners v Belgium)

b) Strict (Comitato v Regione Lombardia)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Overview of applicability of direct effect doctrine

A

Treaty Articles: VDE + HDE
Regulations: VDE + HDE
Decisions: VDE + HDE
Directives: VDE only

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Vertical direct effect of Treaty Articles

A

Van Gend en Loos

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Horizontal direct effect of Treaty Articles

A

Defrenne v Sabena (No.2)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Vertical and horizontal direct effect of regulations

A

Article 288 TFEU

Leonisio v Italian Ministry for Agriculture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Vertical and horizontal direct effect of decisions

A

Article 288 TFEU

Grad v Finanzamt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Vertical direct effect of directives

A

Useful effect approach (Van Duyn v Home Office)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Extra condition for vertical direct effect of directives

A

Implementation period must have expired (Pubblico Ministero v Ratti)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Obligations before the expiry of the implementation period

A

Directive can be invoked even after it has been implemented by the Member States, to determine if the implementing authorities have acted within their powers (Verbond van Nederlands)

Member States have an obligation NOT TO ADOPT measurs that could seriously undermine the result of the Directive (Wallonie, Mangold)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Starting point for horizontal direct effect of directives

A

No direct effect, strict estoppel approach (Marshall I, as confirmed in Faccini Dori)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Rationale against horizontal direct effect for directives in Marshall I

A

a) Judges: brief and literal interpretation of Article 288 TFEU - addressed to Member States only

b) Advocate-General
- Directives are not published, undermining legal certainty
- Blur distinction between regulations and directives

24
Q

Rationale against horizontal direct effect for directives in Faccini Dori

A

Judges: Difference between regulations and directives

25
Q

Horizontal direct effect by the state

A

State cannot enforce against other individuals (e.g. criminal proceedings) (Luciano Arcaro)

26
Q

Arguments by AG Lenz in Faccini Dori IN FAVOUR OF horizontal direct effect

A

a) Rationale and manner of HDE are fundamentally different from when directives have vertical direct effect
b) Equality of conditions of competition
c) Prohibition of discrimination
d) Directives meant to affect relations between private persons, failure to transpose directive deprives it of ‘useful effect’

27
Q

Arguments by AG Lenz in Faccini Dori AGAINST horizontal direct effect

A

a) Wording of Article 189 and nature of directives are binding only on MS, only re results to be achieved
b) Burden on third parties incompatible with rule of law
c) Democratic deficit increases where national parliaments are bypassed
d) Recognition of HDE would increase MS’ carelessness in transposing them

28
Q

Overview of ways to circumvent lack of HDE

A

a) Definition of the state
b) General principles
c) Incidental effect
d) Indirect effect
e) State liability for non-implementation

29
Q

Emanation of the state

A

Aimed at preventing the State from benefitting from failure to comply with EU law (Marshall I)

30
Q

Definition of the state

A

All organs of administration, including decentralised admin authorities such as municipalities (Fratelli)

31
Q

Test for definition of the state

A

Provide public service under State control and has special powers (Foster v British Gas)

32
Q

Examples of successful Foster criteria

A

a) Privatised industry (Griffin v South West Water Co)

b) Constitutionally independent authorities (Johnston v CC of RUC)

33
Q

Examples of unsuccessful Foster criteria

A

a) Corporations that provide service to State but not public service (Doughty v Rolls Royce)

34
Q

Relaxation of Foster test i.e. easier to find emanation of the state

A

Foster test is not a statutory definition (St Mary’s Church of England Aided School)

35
Q

Application of relaxed Foster test

A

a) Special powers (Kampelmann)
b) Public service and therefore has special powers; presence of state control not required (Rieser v Asfinag)
c) Hospital in receipt of public funding (Vassallo)
d) Confirms Kampelmann; foster requirements shoudl be read disjunctively and don’t need to satisfy all Foster requirements (Farrell v Whitty)

36
Q

Rationale for relaxation of Foster test from AG Sharpston in Farrell v Whitty

A

Legal nature of body is irrelevant

Day to day actual control not required

No funding required – ownership or control sufficient

Duties in public interest (additional powers) sufficient

37
Q

General principles

A

Inferring general principle encapsulated within the Directive, which is horizontally effective

(Mangold, confirmed in Kucukdeveci for the general principle of equal treatment against age discrimination)

38
Q

Limitation of general principle approach

A

Grounds of obesity (not established to be a disability that is covered by principle of equal treatment) (Kaltoft)

39
Q

Incidental effect

A

When one party suffers legla detrimental and other party gains legal advantage from the terms of an unimplemented directive

40
Q

Scenario for incidental effect

A

Conflicting national laws being relied upon –> court sets aside national law that contravenes Directive –> plaintiff has a successful claim based on the national law that prevailed

41
Q

Incidental effect

A

When one party suffers legal detrimental and other party gains legal advantage from the terms of an unimplemented directive

42
Q

Rationale for incidental effect

A

Exclusionary effect that flows from primacy of EU law (AG Saggio, Oceano Grupo)

43
Q

Source of incidental effect

A

CIA Security International (Unfair practices for alarm systems in Belgium)

44
Q

Rationale for incidental effect

A

Exclusionary effect (AG Saggio, Oceano Grupo)

45
Q

Obligation of the courts in incidental effect

A

Interpretative obligation to achieve result by the directive, even in proceedings between individuals (Centrosteel)

46
Q

Extension of courts’ obligation

A

The court must do whatever lies in their jurisdiction re the whole body of rules, not just national law, to achieve the results of a directive (Pfeiffer)

47
Q

Exclusionary effect vs substitutionary effect

A

Directive do not directly substitute national provision and are not the source of the rights, just used to knock down the other party’s defence

Source of the rights = prevailing national law that was not set aside in conflict

48
Q

Criticism of incidental effect

A

Unfairness of burden borne by third parties that suddenly have new obligations (Arcor v Germany; pro-claimant; adverse third party effects do not justify deprivation of rights)

49
Q

Indirect effect

A

National courts are required to interpret national law in light of the wording and purpose of the directive (Von Colson)

MUST HAVE A PRE-EXISTING NATIONAL LAW THAT SEEMS TO CONTRAVENE EU LAW – cannot apply for non-implementation

50
Q

Scope of interpretative obligation in indirect effect

A

Only where the internal law is reasonably capable of that interpretation (Marleasing)

51
Q

Extension of interpretative obligation

A

a) Private disputes (civil proceedings) (Centrosteel)
b) Holistic interpretation re the whole body of law, not just the Directive (Pfeiffer)
c) Applies even after implementation (Marks and Spencer)
d) Regulations (Grimaldi, Rolex)

52
Q

What happens when national law is not reasonably capable of interpretation that conforms with directive

A

Not required to override language if it clearly conflicts with directive (contra legem interpretation)
(Wagner-Miret, Impact)

Discarding the ‘as far as possible’ approach
Broad interpretation of “work accident” (Dominguez - work accident)

Courts “required” to interpret the provision consistently with EU law (Spedition Welter - motor insurance, Dansk Industri)

53
Q

Critique of indirect effect

A

Wide ambit of interpretative obligation (Chalmers, Davies, Monti)

National courts performing legislative function (AG Saggio in Oceano Grupo)

54
Q

Critique of indirect effect

A

Wide ambit of interpretative obligation (Chalmers, Davies, Monti)

National courts performing legislative function (AG Saggio in Oceano Grupo)

55
Q

Limit to interpretative obligation

A

Criminal liability (Kolpinghuis, Luciano Arcaro)

EU Law (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions