Direct Supremacy and State Liability Flashcards
The Principle of Subsidiarity
Actions done on an EU level act on items that cannot be sufficiently enacted on a member state basis
Principle of Proportionality
The EU shall not act beyond its powers drafted in the treaties
Direct Effect
Some provisions of EU law confer rights on individuals, which can be enforced in national courts
Direct Applicability
The doctrine whereby a treaty article or regulation is automatically a part of the member state’s legal system
Direct Applicability of Directives
Directives are not directly applicable as they must be implemented in national legislation
Direct Applicability of Treaty Articles
van Gend en Loos
Treaty Articles are directly effective. The EU treaty constituted a ‘new legal order’ that imposes both rights and obligations on individuals and the state.
EU law is supreme over national laws
Costa
Simmental (individuals gain rights at the cost of a MS sovereignty).
The scope of EU law is unlimited and takes place over MS primary law
Solange I (Internationale handelsgesellschaft) - as well as secondary law (Costa)
Member State courts must set aside any domestic law that is contrary to EU law
Simmenthal
The acceptance of supremacy was voluntary and the UK agreed to be bound by the supremacy of EU law
Factortame
- UK agreed in the passing of the European Communities Act 1972
The UK Parliament chose to be bound by EU law and so courts must set aside conflicting domestic law
Thornburn v Sunderland CC
Domestic courts are under an obligation to follow EU laws because parliament has directed them to do so
R(Miller) v SS for Exiting the EU
So long as what the EU does is constant with rights protected under German constitution, German courts will accept the supremacy of EU law
Solange II
German Courts will intervene if the EU goes further than the treaties will allow and will not give the law in question supremacy
Brunner
If there is a clash with EU law, the Polish Law would be supreme
Polish Constitutional Court Judgement 2005
The conditions for direct effect of Treaty Articles and Regulations
Set out in VGL
- Clear and Precise
- Unconditional
The ‘clear and precise’ requirements of treaty direct effect
Set out in Coop Agricola Zootecnica
- must give rise to identifiable rights
- the obligation must be set out in unequivocal terms
The unconditional requirements of treaty direct effect
Set out in Coop Agricola Zootecnica
- the provision does not depend on other measures
- the state has no discretion in tis implementation
Horizontal and Vertical effect of Treaty Articles
- Horizontal effect (Defrenne)
- Vertical effect (VGL)
- therefore obligations can be enforced against both individuals and the state.
Positive and negative direct effect of treaty articles
- can impose a negative obligation (VGL)
- can impose a positive obligation (Lutticke (Alfons))
Direct effect of reccomendations and opinions
- no direct effect as they are not binding (Grimaldi)
Direct Effect of Regulations
- Regulations are directly applicable
- Regulations are directly effective if they satisfy the conditions set out in VGL (clear, precise + unconditional)
- they have both vertical and horizontal direct effect.
The direct effect of Directives
- only have vertical direct effect (van Duyn)
- not horizontal direct effect (Marshall v Southampton AHA) because they are implemented by member states.
Conditions for the direct effect of directives
Article 288
- sufficiently clear, precise + unconditional (VGL)
- It must have been implemented incorrectly (Ratti)
- The implementation date must have passed (Ratti)
- The action must be against the state, not the emanation of the state (Marshall v Southampton)
The scenario’s of an incorrectly implemented directive
- It has not been implemented at all (Ratti)
- It has been implemented partially or incorrectly (VNO v Inspecteur)
- It has been correctly implemented but incorrectly applied by national authorities (Marks + Spencer)
What is an ‘emanation of the state’
Two tests (Foster v British Gas)
- Tripartite test: cumulative
- Bipartite test: only one must be satisfied (Kampelmann)
The Tripartite test for the emanation of a state
- The body provides a public service
- The service is under the control of the state
- For the purposes of providing the service, the body has special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable between individuals.
The Bipartite test for the emanation of the state
- The body has special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable between individuals
- The service is under State control.
In the UK legal system, the tripartite test for an emanation of the state should be applied
Lord Mustill: Doughty v Rolls Royce.
Examples of an emanation of the state
- Tax authorities (Becker)
- Local and regional authorities (Fratelli)
- Police forces (Johnston)
- Health Authorities (Marshall)
- Universities (Scholz)
- Privatised Water Companies (Griffin)
- Magistrates (Constanzo)
A government owned company producing cars was deemed not to be an emanation of the state
Doughty v Rolls Royce
‘Collateral’ horizontal direct effect as directives is possible
Wells: environmental impact planning forced the suspension of quarry activities
The CJEU attempts to solve the limitations of Directive Direct Effect
- Expansion of the definition of an emanation of the state
- Created the principles of Indirect Effect
- Developed the doctrine of state liability
Indirect effect is relevant where a directive doesn’t have Direct Effect:
- A directives provisions can be used to interpret national legislation as far as possible (Marleasing)
- Interpretation must be in a way that is in conformity with the directive itself (von Colson)
Indirect effect of Directives in the UK
- A wide purpose approach (Lister v Forth)
- Can have words read into it (Pickstone v Freemans)
- Cannot go as far as distorting the meaning of the legislation (Duke v GEC Reliance)
Rules about the application of Indirect Effect in the UK
Rule provided in HMRC v IDT card services
- clear legislation can be interpreted
- interpretation can change the meaning of the legislation
- Interpretation must not re-write the legislation
- interpretation cannot force a court to make policy changes.
Incidental Indirect Effect
Contract of sale between two parties (Unilever)
General Principles of EU law can be used in disputes between individuals
Mangold
- although dissociated in Felix
- Reaffirmed in Egenberger (Religious Discrimination)
In disputes between two people, national courts are not obliged to display provisions of national law that are contrary to a directive
Smith
Fundamental Rights are enshrined in general principles of human law
Stauder
The CJEU has no jurisdiction over domestic human rights
Stork
- National Constitutions and International Human Rights only inspire EU law (Nold)
The EU impliedly protects human rights
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft
The institutions of the EU must comply with the ECHR
Kadi
The rights of prisoners to vote was within the scope of EU law
ERT
Student activists promoting abortion services were not governed by EU laws as they were not economically tied to the claimant
Grogan
Charter of Fundamental Rights 2000
- Enforced in the Lisbon Treaty 2009
- The charter does not create new rights, merely affirms them
Polish actions against it’s judiciary were in conflict with fundamental rights
Commission v Poland
The scope of the charter of fundamental rights binds not only the creation of law but also the application of law
Fransson
State Liability: There is no duty on member states to introduce remedies for an EU law claim
Ruwe
Two requirements need to be met for an EU law remedy to be applied under State Liability
Equivalence: the remedy is the same for EU and Domestic Law
Effectiveness: the remedy should not be impossible or excessively difficult in practice to claim
SL: The domestic court is to set aside the domestic remedy for an EU remedy
van Schijndel
SL: It is for the national courts to interpret the procedural rules governing action brought before them
Unibet
SL: The union may be liable for damages under EU aw and conditions are common to the general principles of EU States
Art 340
- The Union may have to pay an individual compensation if it breaches EU law (Zuckerfabrik)
State liability definition
Francovich
Refers to the principles according to which, individuals can recover compensation from a member state where they have suffered a loss caused b the MS’s failure to fulfil its obligations under EU law
The conditions for state liability for a breach concerning a total lack of implementation were outlined in
Francovich
The conditions for state liability for a breach concerning a partial implementation were outlined in
Brasserie du Pecheur
The Francovich Conditions
- The directive should entail the ‘grant of rights’ to individuals
- It should be possible to ‘identify the content’ of those rights
- There must be a ‘casual link’ between the state’s breach and the loss suffered.
Brasserie du Pecheur conditions
- The directive was intended to ‘confer rights’ on individuals
- There must be a direct ‘casual link’ between the breach and the damage
- There must be a ‘sufficiently serious’ breach
Constituting a sufficiently serious breach
The state must have manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion (Brasserie)
Factors to take into account to establish a sufficiently serious breach concerning a partial implementation (Brasserie)
- The discretion available to the member states
- The clarity and precision of the rule breached (ex p BT)
- Whether the MS committed the breach intentionally, or the incorrect implementation was excusable (ex parte BT)
- Any responsibility that EU institutions may have had in providing guidance to Member States
- How other member states have dealt with the same issue
A failure to implement a directive is automatically a sufficiently serious breach
Dillenkofer
The breach of failing to implement a directive may apply not only to legislative and executive power, but also to the judiciary
Kobler
A sufficiently serious breach would only apply to situations where MSs enjoyed limited discretion or no discretion at all.
Hedley Lomas
Article allowing the commission to bring proceedings before the CJEU against a MS for not fulfilling its treaty obligations.
258 TFEU
Article allowing a MS to bring proceedings against another MS
259 TFEU
Specific Conditions must be met before Indirect Effect can be applied:
- The implementation date of the directive must have passed (Adeneler)
- IE can apply both vertically (von Colson) and Horizontally (Harz)
- All national legislation can be interpreted regardless of whether they were passed before or after the directive under discussion (Marleasing)
- Interpretation of national legislation should go as far as possible (Marleasing)
Interpretation, under Indirect effect, should go as far as possible
Set out in (Marleasing), provided:
- it does not lead to making an interpretation that is contra legem i.e. does not worsen the position of an individual in criminal proceedings (Pupino)
- it is not used to contravene a genera principle of EU law, e.g. certainty (Klopinghuis Nijmegen)
- It does not distort the meaning of the original legislation (Wagner Miret)
- IE will not be possible if there is no national legislation to interpret (Francovich)