Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Direct Effect as a Means of the Enforcement of EU law through National Courts. Ljiljana Biukovic Assistant Professor Faculty of Law, UBC Fall 2007. Starting point – Direct Effect of the Treaty: Van Gend en Loos (case 26/62).
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Faculty of Law, UBC
1. ECJ had to use the same test as in Van Gend en Loos to find if the Treaty provision was capable of having direct effect
2. If applied strictly, the test would not find Article 141 neither clear nor unconditional and some further actions by Belgium were needed to clarify measures needed to abolish discrimination [para. 19]
3. ECJ then relaxed the test asking only for a provision to be sufficiently precise and unconditional to be invoked in national courts – the issue is one of justiciability (according to a former ECJ judge Pescatore)
4. ECJ introduced the concept of horizontal direct effect of the Treaty - the case involved two private parties (SABENA was not seen as a public/government agent) and acknowledged direct effect of the Treaty in the context of legal proceedings against a private party
“ 12… where the Community authorities have, by Directive, imposed on MSs the obligation to pursue a particular course of conduct, the useful effect of such an act would be weakened if individuals were prevented from relying on it before their national courts … It is necessary to examine, in every case, whether the nature, general scheme and wording of the provisions in question are capable of having direct effect on the relations between MSs and individuals.”
“The obligation to interpret a provision of national law in conformity with a directive arises whenever the provision in question is to any extent open to interpretation …
The obligation to give an interpretation in conformity with a directive is…restricted by Community law itself, of which the directive forms part, and in particular by the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity which also form part of Community law…”
“It follows that, in applying national law, whether the provisions in question were adopted before or after the Directive, the national court called upon to interpret it is required to do so, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the latter and thereby comply with the third paragraph of Article 189 [now 249] of the Treaty”
19. In accordance with the case-law of the Court, it is for the national courts, in application of the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 5 of the EEC Treaty, to ensure the legal protection which persons derive from the direct effect of provisions of Community law
21. … the full effectiveness of Community law would be … impairedif a rule of national law could prevent a court (seized of a dispute governed by Community law) from granting interim relief in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed under Community law . It follows that a court which in those circumstances would grant interim relief, if it were not for a rule of national law, is obliged to set aside that rule .
23. Consequently, the reply to the question raised should be that Community law must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which, in a case before it concerning Community law, considers that the sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law must set aside that rule . “
2. Regarding Member State’s liability:
“33. The full effectiveness of Community rules would be impaired and the protection of the rights which they grant would be weakened if individuals were unable to obtain redress when their rights are infringed by a breach of Community law for which a Member State can be held responsible. (reference to individual rights)
35 … a State must be liable for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community law for which the State can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the Treaty (principle of state liability embedded in the EC law)
36 A further basis for the obligation of Member States to make good such loss and damage is to be found in Article 5 of the Treaty, under which the Member States are required to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of their obligations under Community law. Among these is the obligation to nullify the unlawful consequences of a breach of Community law (see, in relation to the analogous provision of Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty, the judgment in Case 6/60 Humblet v Belgium  ECR 559).
3. Regarding the conditions of MS’s liability:
“40. The first of those conditions is that the result prescribed by the directive should entail the grant of rights to individuals. The second condition is that it should be possible to identify the content of those rights on the basis of the provisions of the directive. Finally, the third condition is the existence of a causal link between the breach of the State' s obligation and the loss and damage suffered by the injured parties.
“74. …[W]here a breach of Community law by a Member State is attributable to the national legislature acting in a field in which it has a wide discretion to make legislative choices, individuals suffering loss or injury thereby are entitled to reparation where (1)the rule of Community law breached is intended to confer rights upon them, (2) the breach is sufficiently serious and (3.) there is a direct causal link between the breach and the damage sustained by the individuals....The possibility of making reparation conditional upon the existence of fault (third question in Case C-46/93)”