Indirect effect and state liability revision Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Von Colson & Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

A
  • 2 female prison workers rejected on basis of gender
  • Breached Directive 26/207 stating equal treatment of genders
  • Directive had been implemented but not fully
  • German law regarding the directive was interpreted in line with the Directive
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Harz v Deutsche Tradax

A
  • Indirect effect can be horizontally effective
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Marleasing v La Commercial

A
  • Indirect effect is horizontally effective
  • Any national law can be interpreted in light of EC legislation, not just legislation specific to the Directive
  • National law can be interpreted ‘as far as possible’ to fit EC law, even if it is in direct conflict with the EC law
  • High water-mark case
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Duke v GEC Reliance

A
  • Uk case pre-dating Marleasing

- Only directive-specific legislation can be interpereted using IE

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

Wagner Miret v Fondon de Garantira Salaria

A
  • Reduced the scope of indirect effect
  • Only MS law which can be interpreted to be EC compatible must be
  • If MS law is directly in conflict with EC law then do not have to comply, though still likely to be a claim through State Liability
  • Facts; Spannish case, Directive stating funds must be set up for employees of insolvent companies. Spannish law excluded executives, MS did not have to interpret law, but Wagner Miret did still have claim through state liability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Webb v EMO Air Cargo

A
  • British reaction to scope of indirect effect after Marleasing
  • British courts must interpret UK law to fit EC law as far as possible, though cannot go directly against UK law
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Adeneler v ELOG

A

The implementation date of a directive must have passed to allow for indirect effect

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

Evobus Austria GmbH

A

Confimrs Wagner Miret, where directly conflict between MS and EU MS law can remain, but will be liable to state liability

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

Kolpinghuis Nijmegen BV

A
  • The state cannot use indirect effect in criminal proceedings
  • This is to ensure legal certainty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Grimaldi v Fondes des Maladies Professionals

A

Indirect effect can be given to any type of Eu legislation

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

Francovich v Italy

A
  • Could not use DE as horizontal effect
  • Could not use IE as no legislation in MS law
  • Action brought under state liability
    Conditions of SL;
    • Legislation entails rights
    • Legislation includes identifiable rights
    • Must be causal link between un- enacted legislation and loss
  • Francovich shows that SL only applies to directives (limited scope - later expanded)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Brasserie du Pecheur (BDP)

A
  • Broadened scope of SL to any EU legislation

- Does not have to be a total breach however must be a ‘sufficiently serious’ breach

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

Factortame

A

Sl applicable to treaty articles

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

Dillenkofer v Germany

A

Failing to implement a Directive in time counts as a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ for the purposes of the Brasserie du Pecheur test for state liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What factors constitute the BDP definition of ‘sufficiently serious’

A

Manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of discretion;

  • Clarity and precision of the rule breached
  • Measure of discretion left to MS
  • Whether breach was intentional/excusable
  • Responsbility of community breach
  • Extent to which MS adopted or retained national laws contrary to Community Law
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Ex p. Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd

A
  • Denied animal use contracts
  • Purposefully breaking Eu law
  • Did not interpret MS law with EU law as contrary
  • State liability claim
17
Q

Ex p. B. T. PLC

A
  • UK badly implemented a directive, no state liability because;
  • Lack of precision in directive
  • Good faith interpretation which was not obviously wrong
  • Same interpretation made by other MS
  • No guidance from the Community institutions