EU WS 2 Flashcards
Defrenne vs SABENA (No 2) [1976]
- Defrenne sued airline company SABENA under Article 119 for not providing equal pay for men and women doing equal work
- ECJ applied the purposive approach to follow the spirit of the legislation
(Horizontal Direct Effect)
Van Gend en Loos (1963)
- Van Gend en Loos sued Dutch government as they were forced to pay customs duties on imports, contrary to what is now Article 30 TFEU
- Set precedent that Treaty Articles are directly effective if:
- sufficiently clear and precise
- unconditional
- leave no room for discretion on implementation
(Vertical direct effect)
———————-
ECJ made it clear that ‘the Community constitutes a new legal order’ and that ‘the States have limited their sovereign rights’
Pubblico Ministero v Ratti [1979].
- Ratti sought to use two Directives in criminal defence
- Only one applied, which was the one which time limit for implementation had passed
Marshall [1986]
- Marshall sued her employer, part of the NHS, in Equal Treatment directive
- Direct application of the Directive allowed as her employer was an ‘emanation of the state’
- ECJ confirmed that Directives were only directly effective vertically
- Example of Equivalence
Duke v GEC Reliance [1988]
- Sued employer for the exact same reasons as Marshall [1986]
- But as her employer was not an ‘emanation of the state’
- Claim was horizontal and could not apply the directive
….. - Tried to apply indirectly (!)
- But as the Sex Discrimination Act was non-implementing legislation, could not be applied
Foster v British Gas [1990]
ECJ unclearly outlined an emanation of the state as:
- Providing a public service
- Under state control
- Possessing special powers
Farrell [2017]
Made it clear that a body does not need to meet all three Foster criteria. Reasonable to conclude that a body is an emanation of the state if:
- The state has delegated to it a public interest; and
- It is either under state control, or possesses special powers
Von Colson [1984]
- Two female social workers attempted to invoke the Equal Treatment Directive against a German State Prison.
- It did not satisfy the Van Gend criteria for direct effect.
- The new principle of Indirect Effect was developed.
- This required Member States to interpret national law in such a way to ensure that the objectives of a Directive are fulfilled - purposive approach.
Pickstone v Freemans plc [1988]
- EU Directive stated that employees should be paid same amount for same value of work
- Whilst UK law stated insufficiently that they should be paid the same amount for the same work
- As this was meant to be implementing the directive
- The court used the purposive approach and Pickstone could rely on the directive indirectly
Marleasing [1990]
- The ECJ widened the scope for indirect effect, ruling that national courts should interpret - as far as possible - national law in line with any relevant Directive.
Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd [1995]
- Faced with discrepancies between Equal Treatment Directive 1976 and Sex Discrimination Act
- Direct effect not applicable
- Following Marleasing ruling, indirect effect could be applied on non-implementing legislation
Wagner Miret v Fondo [1993]
- Where national legislation clearly conflicts with the relevant directive, indirect effect will not apply
Luciano Arcaro [1996]
- Indirect effect will not apply where it would impose criminal liability
- Against principle of Legal Certainty (legitimate expectation)
Francovich [1991]
MS can be required to pay compensation to individuals if it failed to implement a Directive, under following conditions:
- Directive gives rights to individuals
- These are identifiable
- Causal link between the failure to implement the Directive and the damage suffered
Brasserie du Pêcheur, Factortame no 4 [1996]
- Extended Francovich principle to any type of EU law
- Ruled that the breach needs to be sufficiently serious
