Indirect effect and state liability revision Flashcards Preview

EU Law (Adam) > Indirect effect and state liability revision > Flashcards

Flashcards in Indirect effect and state liability revision Deck (17):
1

Von Colson & Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

- 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

2

Harz v Deutsche Tradax

- Indirect effect can be horizontally effective

3

Marleasing v La Commercial

- 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

4

Duke v GEC Reliance

- Uk case pre-dating Marleasing
- Only directive-specific legislation can be interpereted using IE

5

Wagner Miret v Fondon de Garantira Salaria

- 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

6

Webb v EMO Air Cargo

- 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

7

Adeneler v ELOG

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

8

Evobus Austria GmbH

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

9

Kolpinghuis Nijmegen BV

- The state cannot use indirect effect in criminal proceedings
- This is to ensure legal certainty

10

Grimaldi v Fondes des Maladies Professionals

Indirect effect can be given to any type of Eu legislation

11

Francovich v Italy

- 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)

12

Brasserie du Pecheur (BDP)

- Broadened scope of SL to any EU legislation
- Does not have to be a total breach however must be a 'sufficiently serious' breach

13

Factortame

Sl applicable to treaty articles

14

Dillenkofer v Germany

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

15

What factors constitute the BDP definition of 'sufficiently serious'

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

16

Ex p. Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd

- Denied animal use contracts
- Purposefully breaking Eu law
- Did not interpret MS law with EU law as contrary
- State liability claim

17

Ex p. B. T. PLC

- 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