Chapter 1

Question 1

What were the initial primary mechanisms in the EEC Treaty which enforced the obligations of MS?

Answer 1

Article 169
Article 170
Article 177 (referral of qs)
Article 189 - regs are binding and directly applicable

Question 2

Explain Van Gend En Loos

Answer 2

About Article 12 - MSs must not introduce new custom duties on imports or exports of CEE
CoJ decided that the EEC Treaty was a:
> new legal order
> that treaty articles had direct effect
> paved the way for EU Supremacy

Question 3

Costa case

Answer 3

The Supremacy of EU Law
backed up by Handelgesellschaft + Simmenthal

Formally recognised in Article 17 of the Lison Treaty

Question 4

Handelgesellschaft

Answer 4

EU law takes precedence over the national constitution of a MS including fundamental rights

Question 5

Simmenthal

Answer 5

Nat courts must NOT wait for a national measure which conflicted with EU law to be set aside by national authority

Question 6

Van Gend en Loos critea

Answer 6

> sufficiently clear and precise
unconditional

defined in Zootecnica

Question 7

Van Gend en Loos will not be stopped by…

Answer 7

Questions of interpretation which can be resolved by a court
Van Duyn

A MS choosing among several possible means of achieving the result required by the Directive
Francovich

Question 8

Defrenne v Sabene

Answer 8

Air hostess sex discrimination
Infringed article 119 EEC (now article 157 TFEU)
Not clear - to identify situations which other indirect disc arose
MS had to take more explicit measures

Question 9

Van Colson

Answer 9

prison sex discrim
Article 6 of Equal Treatment Directive
Not clear + precise - ‘such measures as are necessary’

Question 10

Francovich

Answer 10

Directive 80/897
Bankruptcy - claim outstanding wages
Identity of person liable not clear
No direct effect

Question 11

Alfrons Lutticke

Answer 11

Article 110 TFEU
Imposed a positive obligation
Was directly effective

Question 12

Horizontal / Direct Effect for Treaties

Answer 12

Yes both
Van Gend en Loos - Vertical
Sabena - Horizontal

Question 13

Horizontal / Direct Effect for Regulations

Answer 13

Yes both
Politics s.a.s
Must comply with Van Gend en Loos
for example in Azienda, he provisions of 2 regulations did not have direct effect because those provisions specifically required MS to define a phrase

Question 14

Horizontal / Direct Effect for Decisions

Answer 14

Yes they have direct effect (Franx Grad)

But only to the party tp whom the decision was addressed (Carp Snc)

Question 15

Direct Effect for Directives

Vertical / Horizontal

Answer 15

Van Duyn
They could have Direct Effect as long as they satisfy the VGeL critera

BUT
Ratti
Created a new rationale
A MS cannot rely against individuals on its own failure to perform the obligations that the Directive entails
A DE is a SOLUTION when MS fail to implement properly

No horizontal effect - Marshall

Question 16

Conditions for a Directive having DE

Answer 16

> must satisfy the VGeL critera
The Implementation Date must have passed
Ratti
> package solvents in conformity with Directive 73/173 and to apply Directive 77/728 
> Directive 73 had DE as deadline passed

Question 17

A Directive can also have DE even when…

Answer 17

Partially or incorrectly implemented
Verbond van Nederlandse

Implemented but not applied in such a way as to achieve the result sought by it
Marks & Spencer plc v

Question 18

Can a directive have horizontal effect?

Answer 18

Marshall v Southampton and South West Area Health Authority
sex discrimination - violated Directive 76/307
CoJ agreed that Directive could not have horizontal effect against a private individual
But a person could rely on a Directive against the State regardless of the capacity that the State was acting in

Question 19

What are emanations of the state?

Answer 19

Becker - tax authorities
Local/regional authorities - Fratelli
Cindependent police force - Johnston

Question 20

Criteria for checking something is an emanations of the force

Answer 20

Foster
Biparte Test +
Tripartite test used

Question 21

What is the Tripartite test?

Answer 21

A body which:
> has been made responsible bc of a measure adopted by the State for providing a public service
> under the control of the state and
> has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals
^^^ all elements must be satisfied

Question 22

What is the Bipartite test?

Answer 22

Organisations or bodies which:
> were subject to the authority or control of the state
> had special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals

Question 23

When was the Tripartite Test used?

Answer 23

Doughty v Rolls Royce

Griffin

Salamander AG
(annulment of Directive 98/43/EC)

Portgas

Question 24

When was the Bipartite Test used?

Answer 24

National Union of Teachers (kinda)

Kampelmann

Sozialhilfeverband

Question 25

How was the Bipartite/Tripartite test resolved?

Answer 25

In Farrell Reformulated Bipartite Test > They are legal persons governed by public law that are part of the State in the broad sense such as local or regional authorities; or > They are subject to the authority or control of a public body; or > They have been required, by such a body, to perform a task in the public interest and have been given, for that purpose, such special powers.

Question 26

What is Indirect Effect

Answer 26

Imposing an interpretive obligation | Interpretation of national law in a way that conforms to the Directive

Question 27

Von Colson

Answer 27

No direct effect as not unconditonal/clear Introduced indirect effect Replied on Article 5 EC which requires that Member States ‘take all appropriate measures’ to ensure that their obligations under EU law are fulfilled, and drew from this the principle of indirect effect.

Question 28

Is Indirect Effect horizontal and vertical?

Answer 28

It is vertical - Van Colson | Also horizontal - Harz

Question 29

Can Indirect Effect apply when the law was passed before the EU rule?

Answer 29

Yes Marleasing Pre-existing Spanish civil code Spain has not implemented the Directive + deadline passed

Question 30

What scope does Indirect Effect have?

Answer 30

Adeneler Only available once implementation deadline passed Marleasing To interpret 'as far as possible' Wagner No way of interpreting spanish law to conform it to EU law so no indirect effect Pupino Cant have a contradiction (Kolpinghuis) Limited by General Principles of EU Law IDT Card Services: - doesnt have to be ambiguous - interpretation can change meaning - cannot go BEYOND / rewrite legislation - not to make policy choices that it is not equipped to male

Question 31

What is State Liability

Answer 31

Compensation where they have incurred a loss as a result of the failure of that MS to fulfil its obligations under EU law

Question 32

Where did State Liability come from?

Answer 32

Francovich No Direct Effect No pre-existing national law Italy was liable for not having implemented this Directive Article 5 EC - requirement on Member States to fulfil their Treaty obligations also included remedying the consequences of breaching those obligations.

Question 33

What are the Francovich conditions ?

Answer 33

For State Liability initially > result prescribed by the directive should entail the grant of rights to individuals > possible to identify the content of those rights > causal link between breach of state and loss by parties

Question 34

Where were the Francovich conditions applied ?

Answer 34

Wagner Spanish management fees one > liable as Spain had failed to implement the Directive properly

Question 35

What are the Brasserie conditions?

Answer 35

For State Liability 1. The rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals. 2. The breach must be sufficiently serious. 3. There must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the state and the damage sustained by the injured parties.

Question 36

What does it mean by 'sufficiently serious'? Brasserie

Answer 36

whether the Member State had ‘manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion’ Factors: > Clarity and precision of the rule breached > The measure of discretion left to the MS by the rule > Whether the breach was intentional > Whether the breach was excusable > The extent to which a position taken by a union institution may have contributed to the breach > The extent to which the Member States had adopted or retained national measures contrary to EU law.

Question 37

Where were the Brasserie conditions applied?

Answer 37

R v HM Treasury Excusable bc The lack of precision in the relevant provision of the directive. The UK’s interpretation of what was required was made in good faith. The same interpretation of the provision as made by the UK had also been made by other Member States. That interpretation ‘was not manifestly contrary to the wording of the directive or the objective pursued by it’. There was no guidance available through either case law of the Court of Justice or from the Commission, which had not raised the matter with the UK when it had implemented the Directive. Hedley Lomas > The Court found that, in this context, the first condition for state liability in the test in Brasserie du Pêcheur was fulfilled because Article 34 TFEU conferred rights on exporters.

Question 38

How were the two tests for state liability resolved?

Answer 38

Dillenkofer Two tests are the same in substance F test - only when there is a failure to take any steps to implement a directive A failure by a Member State to take steps to implement a directive once the deadline for implementation has passed, as had occurred in Francovich, is of itself a sufficiently serious breach under the Brasserie du Pêcheur test. any breach which would satisfy the Francovich test would also satisfy the Brasserie du Pêcheur test. That makes it an AUTOMATICALLY SERIOUS BREACH ! Therefore anything under the F test is automatically under the B test as it is a serious breach