The principle of state liablity

Beschreibung

Mindmap am The principle of state liablity, erstellt von tystania am 17/04/2014.
tystania
Mindmap von tystania, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
tystania
Erstellt von tystania vor etwa 10 Jahre
44
0

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

The principle of state liablity
  1. Conditions for liability
    1. Brasserie du Pecheur & Factortame: claimants have to show that: 1. the rule of union law infringed was intended to confer rights on indivs, 2. the infringement was sufficiently serious, 3. there was a direct causal link between infringement and damage sustained
      1. Brinkmann: If MS fails to take any step to give effect to directive within time laid down, that will constitute a sufficiently serious breach for purposes of brasserie conditions
        1. National authorities hadn't failed to comply, they made a bona fide attempt but provisions were open to a number of perfectly tenable interpretations. Court said if a directive is generally unclear, then there won't be liability in damages. Only in the most extreme cases that state will incur liability for actions of supreme court decisions.
        2. 'Sufficiently serious'
          1. Degree of clarity and precision of the EU rule that has been breached (R v HM Treasury ex p British Telecom
            1. the 'intentionality' of the infringement (Dillenkofer v Germany)
              1. the degree of discretion provided to the MS by the provision (ex p Hedley Lomas)
          2. Definition
            1. Francovich: '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'
              1. employees of a bankrupt company who were trying to claim wages arrears, guaranteed by a Directive which Italy had failed to implement. Because they could not sue former employee (horizontal effect), they sued the Italian state instead. Held, Italian State liable for its failure to implement directive if (conditions stated in Brasserie.)
            2. Courts of last resort
              1. Köbler v Austria: if a national court of last resort delivers a decision as a result of which a party is deprived of a right, and that causes him to suffer loss then he can bring proceedings against state.
                1. Objections
                  1. Res Judicata, which prevents matters definitively solved from being reopened. And the need to protect the independence of the judiciary
              2. Relationship with Direct Effect
                1. Faccini Dori - a case on horizontal direct effect. A community directive on consumer protection that was not implemented in Italy. Could claimant rely on state liability to cancel contract? Held, No, directives have no horizontal direct effect.
                2. Legitimacy of the Court's Approach
                  1. State liability in Francovich not derived from explicit treaty provisions... seemed that Court had been guilty of judicial lawmaking and undermining of the rule of law.
                  Zusammenfassung anzeigen Zusammenfassung ausblenden

                  ähnlicher Inhalt

                  Kleines Latein-Quiz
                  anna.grillborzer0656
                  Untersuchung von ganzrationalen Funktionen
                  Anna Lena
                  Sächsisch Quiz
                  tanja.goldbecher
                  Tipps, um dein Lernen zu verbessern
                  Laura Overhoff
                  The Commonwealth
                  Laura D
                  Grundzüge Soziologie Richter
                  Kamila rURKA
                  Innere Schwein Vetie
                  Anne Käfer
                  Vetie Tierseuchen 2019
                  Tropsi B
                  Vetie - Geflügelkrankheiten 2016
                  sylva Heise
                  Vetie - Lebensmittelkunde 2019
                  Valerie Nymphe