Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

EU LAW > INDIRECT EFFECT AND STATE LIABILITY > Flashcards

INDIRECT EFFECT AND STATE LIABILITY Flashcards

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

What case established indirect effect?

A

Von COLSON

  • A6 on the Equal Treatment Directive couldn’t be found to have direct effect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How did IE arise?

A

A5 EC (A4(3)TEU) ‘take all appropriate measures’

  • binding one all authorities including courts to ensure that domestic law is interpreted to conform with the purpose of a directive
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Vertical IE

A

Von Colson

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

Horizontal IE

A

HARZ

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

Marleasing

A

‘Interpret as far as possible to do so’

  • Not dependent on national law
  • Can use provisions of unimplemented directives

DOESNT MATTER IF NATIONAL LAW MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DIRECTIVE

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

PLEIFFER

A

National court must consider national law as a whole

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

WAGNER MIRET

A

Confirmed the principle of Marleasing - as far as possible

No steps taken to amend Spanish law as it was considered unnecessary

IE can’t be used where national law expressly contradicts EU law

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

PUPINO

A
  • IE used for decisions

- Not required to interpret law contra legend (against clear meaning of its words)

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

When can IE be used?

A

After deadline for implementation has passed (Adeneler)

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

Criminal Pro Against Kolpinghuis

A

Limited by EU law general principles (legal certainty and non-retroactivity)

Meant m/a can not rely on a directive itself AND independently of an implementing law to determine criminal liability

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

IE - recommendations and opinions

A

GRIMALDI - obiter

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

What case did the Court of Appeal determine the principles for what interpretive obligation entails? What were they?

A

IDT CARD SERVICES

1) no need to find statutory language unambiguous
2) interpretation can change the meaning of legislation that involves substantial departure from the language
3) Court can’t rewrite and go beyond the interpretation of legislation
4) Court can’t make decisions outside of its powers

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

What is state liability? When was it established

A

Allows compensation recovery when a member state has failed its obligations under EU law

FRANCOVICH

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

Francovich

A

‘Obliged to make good loss and damage caused’ A5EC

FAILURE TO STEP STEPS OF IMPLEMENTATION

Three conditions:

  • directive meant to give individual rights
  • should be able to identify such rights on the basis of the directives provisions
  • causal link between breach and loss
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

WAGNER MIRET

A

Failed to bring national law into line with the Directive

Spanish case - didn’t include senior management of insolvent companies in legalisation to gain compensation

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

Joint cases of Treaty issues?

New approach?

A

Brasserie de Pecheur (Beer to Germany)

Factortame (Spanish stopped fishing)

1) Infringed law intended to confer rights
2) Sufficiently serious
3) Causal link

17
Q

Sufficiently serious list:

A
  • Clear and precise rule?
  • Measure of discretion left to M/S
  • Breach intentional/excusable?
  • EU institution position contributed?
  • The amount the m/s adopted/retained national measures contrary to EU law
18
Q

R v ex parte BT

A

Damages over directive implementation on telecoms procurement

NOT HELD LIABLE - others made mistake, in good faith, not clear, not contrary, no guidance

19
Q

R v HEDLEY LOMAS

A

Damages for refusal to grant UK export license to allow live animal exportation to Spain

MAFF argued A36 breach as D74/577 - stun pre slaughter - not complied with in Spain

STATE LIABLE - DESPITE U.K. NOT HAVING DISCRETION ON THE MATTER

no proof of non compliance of the directive

20
Q

Relations between Francovich and BDP

A

Same in substance - DILLENKOFER

Any breach of F would satisfy

21
Q

Liability over competition law breaches

A

COURAGE LIMITED V CREHAN

Private Undertakings

22
Q

Extensions:

A

Now include breaches of EU law where three BDP conditions can be determined

EXCEPTIONAL CASES = huge errors

23
Q

KOBLER

A

The failure of a national court to refer to the COJ for a preliminary ruling

EU LAW (3 decks)

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