EU law case studies Flashcards
VAN DUYN V HOME OFFICE [1974] (treaties) (direct effect)
first case to be referred to the European Court of Justice by an English court.
Miss Van Duyn was refused to enter the UK on the grounds of her undesirability. She was a Dutch national and a practising Scientologist.
Under EU Law, Member States are allowed to deny EU nationals rights of entry and residence only on the grounds of public policy, security, and health. Moreover, Article 3 provided that measures taken on the grounds of public policy must be based exclusively on the ‘personal conduct’ of the person concerned.
In conclusion, despite the lack of clarity as to the scope of the concept of ‘personal conduct’, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that Mrs. Van Duyn was entitled to invoke the Directive directly before her national court.
Marshall v Southampton Area Health Authority 1986 (direct effect)
Ms Marshall had passed the retirement age for women and was required to retire
Her dismissal ran contrary to the Equal Treatment Directive, which was not implemented by the UK
The EU deemed that her dismissal was wrong.
A directive cannot have horizontal direct effect – this would prejudice individuals for the fault of the state
Directive are only buy alprazolam from canada addressed to Member States
As the Southampton Health Authority was part of the state, a claim would be available
If the employer was not part of the state, a claim could be made against the state for its wrongfulness in not implementing the Equal Treatment Directive
Duke v GEC Reliance Ltd (1998) (horizontal direct effect)
R was a company that had a policy that people should be sacked once they reach retirement age and P sued because she said this was discriminatory. The HL said that under English law this was not illegal, due to a provision in Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which allowed such discrimination. The HL denied that it had to construe the act within the meaning of EC directives and that the directives could not distort the meaning of the act. This is clearly a very narrow view of the extent to which national courts must interpret their laws in compliance with the EC directives. It also seems to contradict the position in Marleasing. Also NB court deciding issue for itself without referral
R v secretary of state for transport ex parte factortame 1990 (impact on england)
New British legislation required that to register a ship in Britain, most of its owners to be of British nationality. Subsequently, a group of fishermen from Spain requested a judicial review of this law, asserting that it breached EC laws.
The House of Lords found for the fishermen and in this watershed case, the Court viewed that they were empowered under EC law to restrict parliamentary legislation and disregard it where it juxtaposed with EC law.
Francovich v Italian Republic (1991) (new ECJ law)
Mr Francovich, along with other employees, was left with unpaid salaries when his company went into liquidation. He applied for compensation under the provisions of Directive which required Member States to institute compensation measures for such instances.
In the absence of the Italian government instituting such measures, the case was referred to the Court for a ruling. The Court found that the wording of the directive was sufficiently vague as to not invoke the principle of direct effect. However to deny the claimants justice because of this deficiency would be to impinge on the effet utile or utility of EU law that was intended to provide adequate compensation.
Even in the absence of sufficiently applicable directives, there was an obligation under the provisions of Article 5 EC Treaty (now Article 10), to compensate individuals for any loss suffered due to the failure of a Member State to implement Community law.
Consequently the Court ruled that individuals had a right to compensation where there was a violation of a Member States’ duty to implement Community law
van Gend en loos 1963 (impact on england and wales)
The claimants, van Gend en Loos, imported chemicals from Western Germany to the Netherlands where they were asked to pay import taxes at Dutch customs, the defendants, 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. The defendants contended that as the claimants were not a natural person but a legal person, they could not claim such rights.
The European Court of Justice found for the claimants, viewing that the European treaties gave rise to rights for legal and natural persons alike.
European treaty law has direct effect against Member States and that they are directly bound by its provisions. Subsequently, European law could be enforced by individuals through the national courts system of a Member State, rather than necessitating that the European Commission bring a legal action against the State in question for failure to comply with its international obligations.
Diocese of Hallam Trustee v Connaughton (1996) (treaties)
Ms Connaughton resigned from her position as director of music. Her salary at that time was £11,138 per annum but the job was advertised at £13,434 per annum. A man was eventually appointed to the position at a salary of £20,000 per annum. On the basis that her work was of equal value to that of the new appointee, Ms Connaughton claimed equal pay. As a preliminary point the industrial tribunal found that Ms Connaughton could use her successor as a comparator.
