External links
- The direct effect of European law – an overview at Eur-lex
- Analysis of Current Legal Trends in the Area of Direct Effect Archived 16 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine
- Dr.Jur. Eric Engle on Direct Effect
In European Union law, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.
Direct effect is not explicitly stated in any of the EU Treaties. The principle of direct effect was first established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen . [1] Direct effect has subsequently been loosened in its application to treaty articles and the ECJ has expanded the principle, holding that it is capable of applying to virtually all of the possible forms of EU legislation, the most important of which are regulations, and in certain circumstances to directives.
The ECJ first articulated the doctrine of direct effect in the case of Van Gend en Loos , [1] the European Court of Justice laid down the criteria (commonly referred to as the "Van Gend criteria") for establishing direct effect. The EU article provision had to be:
If these criteria were satisfied, then the right or rights in question could be enforced before national courts. Whether or not any particular measure satisfies the criteria is a matter of EU law to be determined by the EU Courts.
In Van Gend en Loos [1] it was decided that a citizen was able to enforce a right granted by European Community legislation against the state – the question of whether rights could be enforced against another citizen was not addressed. In Defrenne v. SABENA (No. 2) , [3] the European Court of Justice decided that there were two varieties of direct effect: vertical direct effect and horizontal direct effect, the distinction drawn being based on the person or entity against whom the right is to be enforced.
Vertical direct effect concerns the relationship between EU law and national law – specifically, the state's obligation to ensure its observance and its compatibility with EU law, thereby enabling citizens to rely on it in actions against the state or against public bodies; an "emanation of the state" as defined in Foster v. British Gas plc . [4]
Horizontal direct effect concerns the relationship between individuals (including companies). If a certain provision of EU law is horizontally directly effective, then citizens are able to rely on it in actions against each other. This indicates that a citizen is able to rely on a provision from the EU law against another citizen before the national court. [5] These obligations can create rights for or be imposed on citizens in the Member State. [5] Unlike treaty articles and regulations, Directives are usually incapable of being horizontally directly effective. [5] Certain provisions of the treaties and legislative acts such as regulations are capable of being directly enforced horizontally.
Direct effect is applicable when the particular provision relied on fulfils the Van Gend en Loos criteria. It is therefore applicable in the case of treaty articles (Van Gend en Loos was a claim based on a treaty article), in which case it can be both vertically and horizontally directly effective.
Regulations are also subject to direct effect. As Article 288 TFEU (ex Art 249 TEC) explicitly provides that regulations "Shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States" the ECJ has confirmed that they are therefore in principle directly effective stating that "Owing to their very nature and their place in the system of sources of Union law, regulations operate to confer rights on individuals which the national courts have a duty to protect" [6] If a specific right is conferred therefore a regulation can be both vertically and horizontally directly effective. All regulations are directly effective. [7]
Decisions are directly effective against whomever they are addressed to, as under Article 288 TFEU (ex Article 249 TEC), they are "binding in its entirety... to whom [they are] addressed".
The landmark judgments on the direct effect of Directives are Van Duyn v Home Office , [8] which established vertical direct effect of Directives and Marshall v Southampton Health Authority , [9] which established that there is no horizontal direct effect of unimplemented directives.
The horizontal direct effect of Directives is a contentious issue. Numerous Advocates General have supported the case for establishing horizontal direct effect. [10] However, the ECJ has always resisted a change of the Marshall case law as to allow a general right to invoke on unimplemented directives against private parties. [11] In a number of cases the ECJ has established means for limiting the scope of the prohibition of horizontal direct effect, and ensure the full effectiveness of directives as much as possible.
The case of Foster v British Gas demonstrates the court's willingness to confer the rights of a directive unto individuals, for the purpose of this case the court purported that any government organisation, nationalised company or company working in the public sector can be considered as a public body for the purpose of implementing vertical direct effect when a more narrow reading of the case might infer that horizontal direct effect would need to required for application. This is demonstrated in the case of Van Colson where the court established the practice of 'reading in' a directive into existing national law to realise the directive's effect – despite it not actually being a part of the legislation. Further case law to demonstrate this practice is Francovich v Italy where action could be taken against the government by an individual for their failure to implement a directive and the subsequent loss of rights suffered in court.
In Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein, [12] a case involving VAT, the ECJ ruled that a decision could be directly effective, as they imposed an obligation to achieve a required result. As the ECJ held in Becker, another case involving VAT, "wherever the provisions of a directive appear...to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed period, be relied upon as against any national provision which is incompatible with the directive or insofar as the provisions define rights which individuals are able to assert against the State."
In Pubblico Ministero v. Ratti , [13] however, it was held that if the time limit given for the implementation of the directive has not expired, it cannot have direct effect. Directives were directly effective only if the prescribed date, by which the Member State should have implemented it, had passed. Additionally, in instances where the Member State has introduced the required legislation, but has done so defectively, the directive may still be directly effective, as in the Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen (VNO) case.
Unlike Treaty provisions and regulations, directives cannot have horizontal effect (against another private individual or company), as this is adjudged contrary to the principles of legality and legal certainty (see Marshall v Southampton Health Authority ). [9] As such, Directives are currently only vertically directly effective (i.e. against the state, a concept interpreted broadly by the ECJ, including state schools and other "emanations of the state"). However, the obligation of EU Member States to interpret national law in a consistent and harmonious manner with EU law has been said to have produced an indirect horizontal effect regarding directives. [14] Furthermore, in the judgments CIA Security [15] and Unilever Italia SpA v Central Food SpA, [16] the ECJ allowed a private party to rely on the Notification Directive [17] against another private party. Academic commentary has typically referred to these cases as involving "incidental effects" of directives against private parties, as opposed to full-blown horizontal direct effect. [18] However, the exact distinction between "incidental effects" and "horizontal direct effect" has proved difficult to draw. [19] According to recent case law and commentary, it appears a directive can be invoked against a private party insofar as this does not affect the norm(s) directly governing the dispute at hand. [20]
In Comet v. Produktschap, [21] the European Court of Justice established that the procedural rules of each member state generally apply to cases of EU law. However, two basic principles must be adhered to: "equivalence" (the procedure for EU cases must be equivalent to the procedure for domestic cases) and "effectiveness" (the procedure cannot render the law functionally ineffective).
The European Court of Justice (ECJ), formally just the Court of Justice, is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its uniform application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
A directive is a legal act of the European Union that requires member states to achieve particular goals without dictating how the member states achieve those goals. A directive's goals have to be made the goals of one or more new or changed national laws by the member states before this legislation applies to individuals residing in the member states. Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. Directives can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures depending on their subject matter.
In the European Union, competition law promotes the maintenance of competition within the European Single Market by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies to ensure that they do not create cartels and monopolies that would damage the interests of society.
Direct applicability refers to the fact that EU Regulations require no implementing legislation within individual member states - they take effect as soon as they are published by the European Commission.
R v Secretary of State for Transport was a judicial review case taken against the United Kingdom government by a company of Spanish fishermen who claimed that the United Kingdom had breached European Union law by requiring ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the UK. The case produced a number of significant judgements on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law.
The freedom of movement for workers is a policy chapter of the acquis communautaire of the European Union. The free movement of workers means that nationals of any member state of the European Union can take up an employment in another member state on the same conditions as the nationals of that particular member state. In particular, no discrimination based on nationality is allowed. It is part of the free movement of persons and one of the four economic freedoms: free movement of goods, services, labour and capital. Article 45 TFEU states that:
- Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
- Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
- It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
- The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.
Supranational law is a form of international law, based on the limitation of the rights of sovereign nations between one another. It is distinguished from public international law, because in supranational law, nations explicitly submit their right to make judicial decisions by treaty to a set of common tribunal. The United Nations Security Council and subordinate organizations, such as the International Court of Justice, are the only globally accepted supranational tribunals.
Flaminio Costa v ENEL (1964) Case 6/64 was a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice which established the primacy of European Union law over the laws of its member states.
Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union prohibits cartels and other agreements that could disrupt free competition in the European Economic Area's internal market.
Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) Case 26/62 was a landmark case of the European Court of Justice which established that provisions of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community were capable of creating legal rights which could be enforced by both natural and legal persons before the courts of the Community's member states. This is now called the principle of direct effect. The case is acknowledged as being one of the most important, and possibly the most famous development of European Union law.
Francovich v Italy (1991) C-6/90 was a decision of the European Court of Justice which established that European Union Member States could be liable to pay compensation to individuals who suffered a loss by reason of the Member State's failure to transpose an EU directive into national law. This principle is sometimes known as the principle of state liability or "the rule in Francovich" in European Union law.
The primacy of European Union law is a legal principle establishing precedence of European Union law over conflicting national laws of EU member states.
Van Duyn v Home Office (1974) C-41/74 was a case of the European Court of Justice concerning the free movement of workers between member states.
Defrenne v Sabena (1976) Case 43/75 is a foundational European Union law case, concerning direct effect and the European Social Charter in the European Union. It held that the EU:
is not merely an economic union, but is at the same time intended, by common action, to ensure social progress and seek the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their people...
Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet (2007) C-341/05 is an EU law case, relevant to all labour law within the European Union, which held that there is a positive right to strike. However, it also held that the right to strike must be exercised proportionately and in particular this right was subject to justification where it could infringe the right to freedom to provide services under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 56.
The general principles of European Union law are general principles of law which are applied by the European Court of Justice and the national courts of the member states when determining the lawfulness of legislative and administrative measures within the European Union. General principles of European Union law may be derived from common legal principles in the various EU member states, or general principles found in international law or European Union law. General principles of law should be distinguished from rules of law as principles are more general and open-ended in the sense that they need to be honed to be applied to specific cases with correct results.
Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (1986) Case 152/84 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.
Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl (1994) C-91/92 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.
Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) C-413/99 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.
