EU Law and National Courts Flashcards
Van Gen den Loos
The claimants imported chemicals from Western Germany to the Netherlands where they were asked to pay import taxes at Dutch customs, which they objected to on the grounds it ran contrary to the European Economic Community’s prohibition on inter-State import duties, as per Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome.
Held: In favour of claimant. Requirements For Direct Effect: Clear and Unconditional
Costa v ENFL [1964]
Italy’s nationalisation legislation was contrary to commission law. Italy argued it should be allowed. The Court of Justice did not agree. It reiterated that the Treaty had established a new legal order in which they had limited their sovereign rights. Asserts doctrine of supremacy of EU Law over domestic law
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal [1978]
Simmenthal imported beef for human consumption from France and they had to pay its respective fee importation for public health inspection, they brought legal action againt the appellant.
Held: In favour of Simmenthal “… every national court must, in a case within its jurisdiction, apply Community law in its entirety” EU Law supremacy confirmed unconditionally.
Foster v British
Action brought by six women who had been forced to retire the age of 60 in accordance with the policy of British Gas. The applicants sought to rely on Directive 76/207 (the Equal Treatment Directive). At the time of their dismissal, British Gas was a nationalised industry, although it had subsequently been privatised.
Held: It satisfied the tripartide test, no mention of bartide test. So it was an emanation of the state.
Van Duyn v Home Office
Woman refused entry to the UK without having done anything that listed in the directive (She was a Dutch national and a practising Scientologist).
Held: Directives can have direct effect and the woman should be allowed in.
Defrenne v SABENA
Defrenne claimed she had suffered sex discrimination as a female worker in
terms of pay as compared with male cabin stewards. She maintained that this infringed
Article 119 EEC (now Article 157 TFEU). Airline accepted discrimination, but denied that this rule could be enforced, as they were private.
Held: could be invoked against private employers
Von Colson
Two female social workers who applied for jobs with the prison
service of a German Federal State. Both had been rejected in favour of less well qualified male applicants. Under national law they were only entitled to nominal damages in the form of travelling expenses.
Held: Court did not intervene, it specified that the duty to interpret extended only so far as the national court was given discretion to do so under national law.
Francovich & Bonifaci v Italian Republic [1991]
The employers had become insolvent which resulted in them not being paid outstanding wages. Italy had not implemented the directive that each Member State could guarantee employees of insolvent companies could recover at least some of their lost wages, and the deadline had passed.
Held: Italy in breach of its obligations under EU law in not having implemented the Directive. State Liability
Politi s.a.s. v Ministry for Finance of the Italian Republic [1971]
‘regulations are directly applicable and therefore by virtue of their nature capable of producing direct effects’
Grimaldi
Recommendation and opinions are not binding forms of EU Law: no direct effect
Pubblico Ministero v Ratti
Directive is only directly effective after deadline has been implemented, but if deadline is missed, direct effect occurs (estoppel)
Marks & Spencer
State liability exists when a directive has been implemented fully and effectively but is being used for the wrong purpose.
Marshall v Southampton and South West Area Health [1986]
Attempt to enforce direct effect against a private entity
Held: Directive cannot have horizontal direct effect
Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt [1982]
Emanation of the State: Tax authorities
Fratelli Costanzo Spa v Comune di Milano [1989]
Emanation of the State: Local or regional authorities
