Case List

Directives and Primacy:Van Gend en Loos: Concerning the importation of chemicals between member states. Under Article 12 produced direct effect which "imposes obligations upon individuals and also confers rights upon them". This is clear and unconditional based upon the spirit, general scheme, wording and scope of the treaty and so must be taken up by member states (although it does not have to be further acted upon)Defrenne: Female Belgian air hostesses were required to retire earlier than men for lower pay. Article 157 TFEU for equal pay was applied despite the fact this this was a broad principle as opposed to conferring individual rights. There seemed to be a relaxation of Van Gends narrow understanding of what is sufficiently precise and unconditional. Costa v ENEL: there is a permanent limitation to sovereign rights IHG: Conflict between EC regulations and German constitution meant hat EC law could not be judged against national law. The validity of the Community measure could not be affected by allegations that it conflicted with national law. EU law is only invalid if it has an adverse effect of uniformity and efficacy. Winner Wetten: The ousting effect that a directly effective provision takes primacy over national law can be suspended under certain occasions.Inter-Environment Wallonie: A directive on environmental protection had been implemented without the correct procedure of public consultation. As this was done in a way which "strengthened the directive it was allowed until a similar one was implemented through the correct procedure. Becker: EU law imposed an obligation to exempt credit transactions from turn over tax. Held, whenever the provisions of a directive which is unconditional and sufficiently precise is not adopted within the implementation period, it may be relied upon against any national provision which is incompatible. Ratti: Directives impose a duty on member states to adopt implementing measures by a certain date, it would be unfair to base judgement on their failure to carry out this obligation. Governments are 'estopped' from denying direct effect of the effectiveness of a directive they have failed to implement. Marshall: A claim of early dismissal due to age was held to be a vertical claim as the state had acted through the Health Authority. Note: If this were a horizontal claim, the directive cannot be invoked against a private party.Faccini Dori: Directives are not capable of horizontal effect as they grant rights upon individuals and so a general vote from member states agreed that a directive may be vertically effective: it must be possible to identify the content of these rights from the directive however it must be possible to identify a causal link between the state's failure to implement the directive and the damage suffered by an individual. However, in certain cases direct effect (conferring rights to individuals) may be overlooked in order to ascertain state liability and claim damages. Foster & Others: Claimant attempted to bring a case against the state through the British Gas Corporation. The 'notion of state' includes tax, local/ regional policies, public order and safety maintenance and Health Service Authorities. If a claim falls under the notion of state it will amount to vertical direct effect, otherwise it will not succeed. von Colson: Directives are to be used to help interpretate national law consistently with the aimed objectives. Incidental effectMarleasing: All national legislation is to be interpreted in light of EU law, irrespective of whether national provisions were adopted before or after the directive. This may allow horizontal cases to have directives applied "Indirectly". Angelidaki: when national courts apply domestic law they are to interpretate it based upon the directive whether the law was adopted before or after the directive. This was held to be sensible despite pre-existing law. If consistent interpretation makes one criminally liable whom should not be liable or disproportionately portrays the liability as more serious as it should be, the court may rule as an exception to the duty. The duty of consistent interpretation is to be applied only where the period of transposition for the directive has passed. Adeneler: Greece was due to have Directive implemented requiring good measures for a fixed contract. The Directive was to be implemented when the time limit of the directive has expired as national courts have an obligation to read law in conformity with a directive from the date of transposition. CIA Security: breach of the Directive 83/189 procedure to notify the commission and member states of the draft renders the technical regulations inapplicable to individuals (horizontal cases).Unilever: Olive oil was not labeled in compliance with technical regulations. Because the claim was bought by an individual who had no rights over the regulation the claim failed. National courts are required to refuse to apply technical regulations adopted in a way that goes against the procedure of proposed adoption. This created neither rights nor obligations upon individuals. Océano Grupo Editorial: a directive may exclude (primacy) or substitute (direct effect) an incompatible national rule with the directive. Werner Mangold: Lawyer discriminated against employee due to age. Directive 2078 is not a blanket prohibition upon Nation Law and so need not be applied.However, the principle of equal treatment existed separately from the directive. Thus, the discrimination on grounds of age constituted to a general principle of union law and could be applied to horizontal cases. Kücükdeveci: the prohibition against discrimination against the grounds of age need not be applied where to situation had no relevance to the directive (e.g. if the directive has expired).Römer: discrimination on the grounds of age reflects the general principle surrounding the general principle of sexual orientation. When a directive is found to enshrine a general principle of law, individuals can rely upon the principle in cases which apply to union law. Dominguez: The right to pay annual leave cannot be applied directly in horizontal cases. The general principle and directive have vertical effect. Reaction of the National Courts: Solange II: The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany asserted a constitutional power of its own to police the application of fundamental rights itself Brunner: Germany secured the right to ensure respect from EU constitutions in their power Re Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon: They also asserted the right to upon Germany's constitutional Identity. Factortame: European Communities Act is protected against implied repeal- Union law takes precedence over an act of parliament. Thoburn: If there was an English Measure which contained a rule of guaranteed fundamental/constitutional right over the EU, would it have primacy over an EU act? There could be no appeal to the ECJ Open for any individual to bring action. EC Commission can bring infringement proceeds against resisting member states. An attempt of reunion and resolution would be made through political proceedings. If the member state still resists the member sate may be considered to withdraw depending upon their importance and significance in the EU. The ECJ responds though securing rights by forming general principles of Union Law and took more responsibility for policing the Union's powers. Treaty establishing the Constitution of Europe would replace all other treaties enforcing coded primacy over the member states. However, this was not passed as France and the Netherlands voted it down. The Treaty of Lisbon diluted the doctrine of primacy by conditions laid down in case law. Slovak Pensions: Czech Republic constitutional court declared the EU powers as ultra vires (beyond powers/ without authority) and consequently choose to disapply EU law and apply their own.Francovich: Italy failed to implement a directive for the proptection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer. Held, member states are obliged to make good damage on individuals caused by breaches of EU law for which the state can be held responsible (article 4(2) TEU). The advocate general suggested that temporal effect should be limited i.e. judgement does not take place to past, only to present and future. This was rejected as previous case law had already implied state liability. Brassierie du Pécheur & Factortame: Claims for damages of EU law are bought to national courts whom must make available certain remedies so long as: Claimant must show infringed EU was meant to enforce rights on individuals, Infringement must be sufficiently serious Causal link must exist between the injury to the person and the infringement. From Article 340 TEU, the principle of state liability cannot be deduced. Hedley Lomas: Where to defendant state was not called upon to make any legislative choices and has limited discretion, the mere infringement of Union law may be sufficiently serious to constitute to a breach. Brinkman: Failure to give give effect to directive within the time limit automatically constitutes to a sufficiently serious breach. Additionally, if damages are not lain down within the time limit this is a breach in itselfKöbler: Infringement by a national court of last resort. If a national court of last resort delivers a decision as a result of which a party is deprived a a right which union law intended them to enjoy and causes them to suffer loss, he can bring proceeding against the case concerned through the principle of state liability. Res judicata prevents individuals from constantly re-litigating the same decision once it had reached the highest court. This does not apply if one is "re-opening" the new case with a completely separate/new claim. Annulments:ERTA: Dispute between Commission + Council as to whether the commission or member states had to right to negotiate a European Agreement with non-member states. When the community implements a common policy the member states no longer have an individual or collective right to undertake obligations with third party/ international countries as this would be incompatible with the uniform application of union law. Only the Community can exclusively negotiate and conclude external agreements, this suggests a limitation upon the member state's autonomous power. Implied powers doctrine; an implied international legal personality can be assumed which seems to conflict with this ruling. Held, all measures adopted by institutions which are intended to have legal force can be bought for an action of annulment. IBM: A measure can be judicially reviewed with it is a formal legal act and when it is intended to produce legal effects. The measure must bring abut a distinct change in the applicant's legal standing. IBM challenged proceedings against them for breach of EU competition law. An act is open to review if it definitively lays down the position of the commission/council as a conclusion instead of a provisional measure (leading to the conclusion). In this case proceedings were merely preparatory as so did not compromise IBM's rights. Reynolds Tobacco: There was no distinct change in the applicant's legal position. The applicants were a cigarette company whom were suspected of smuggling cigarettes into the EU. The Commission bought civil proceedings against them in the US. In the Us court the commission was seeking an injunction and damages for lost customs duties and VAT. This did not satisfy the IBM test as starting the legal proceedings did not determine the party's obligations.Les Verts: french political group sought the annulment of measures adopted by the EU parliament. The court held that one could challenge the EU parliament under what is now Article 263. It would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Treaty for measures adopted by the parliament to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties to be excluded from the scope of the action for annulment. Commission v European Parliament and Council: the European Parliament sought the annulment of Council Decision in regards the surveillance of the sea external borders. Omega Air: The validity of a regulation restricting the use of aeroplanes at European Airports was questioned. Omega was an aircraft trader, they were developing a programme for engine replacement that would meet with the regulation's noise standards. Plaumann: Clementine importation; a person is not individual concerned merely because it carries a particular commercial activity which could be practiced by anyone. The clementine importation would affect all importers in the past, present and future. There was nothing to make the claimant particularly concerned. Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami: The Paumann Formula stated that in order for an act to be of individual concern, the act must affect them in the same way of an addressee of a decision due to attributes particular to them alone. Direct concern = an applicant must show that at the time the act was adopted, the effect it produced on him is substantially certain.Alacan v Commission: Decision adopted by the Commission addressed to Belgium disallowed importation of aluminium at a discounted rate. Alcan was an aluminium business whom believed this decision affected them. However, because there was no certainty that he would be using imported aluminium, his claim was dismissed. There must be no doubt of the discretion and the direct effect. Piraiki-Patraiki: Applicants sought annulment of decision authorising France to restrict import of cotton yarn. This was held to go against the free movement of goods. Originally the applicants were not directly concerned as they had no idea whether the French Government were to actually enforce the authorisation. However, because the French government had asked for the authorisation it was assumed that the decision would be applied and so the action was of direct concern. It was also of individual concern of some of the applicants whom had entered into contracts before the decision was adopted- they were a closed class of individuals (the commission should have taken into account the effect upon the parties of these contracts). Buralux: Court dismissed the challenge to a council regulation on the removal of waste as inadmissible. Contracts existed for disposing of waste from Germany to France. The French authorities adopted an action prohibiting household waste importation.The court upheld that the applicants were not individually concerned as this was not a closed group, it affected everyone within France and Germany whom were in the commercial business of waste disposal despite the fact that they were already in contracts. UPA: UPA was a Spanish trade association representing Spanish farmers whom wished to bring an action for annulment against the council's decision to introduce new regulations which abolished aid to olive farmers. When bringing action against regulatory acts which do not entail implementing measures, direct concern= a substantial adverse effect on the applicant's interests. It is the responsibility of the member states to establish legal remedies and for national courts to interpretate national law in such a way that allows claimants to bring the procedure forward (now Article 19(1) TEU). Jégo-Quéré: Challenged a commission regulation which imposed a minimum mesh size for fishing nets. Held, the applicant was not individually concerned under the Plaumann test particularly because no restrictions or obligations were imposed, merely a regulation. However, a remedy must still be bought forward, this must be done by the Member state themselves as opposed to the Commission. Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami: Measure adopted to restrict trade of seal products under legislative procedure. Regulatory Acts= All acts of general application except for legislative acts (those adopted under both ordinary and special legislative procedure- Article 188 TFEU). As this measure was therefore legislative the applicant must establish direct and individual concern. There was held to be no individual concern as it was expressed in general terms and applied equally to all whom were covered by it. Microban: Commission decision prevented the use of an additive which the applicants manufactured. This was held to be a regulatory act under Article 263 and did not entail implementing measures. It was also of direct concern to the applicants because it was a restrictive prohibition.Rutgers: Applicants sought annulment of decision which did not entail implementing measures. Held, under Article 263 this was of general application even through it had been enforced by an Agency as opposed to the Commission itself. However although the applicants had standing the regulatory act was held to not be unlawful. There was nothing wrong with the substance of the act.

Preliminary References: Pretore di Salò: a second reference may be justified when the national court encounters difficulties applying the judgement, when it refers a fresh question of law or when new considerations may result in a different answer from the ECJ. Syfair: Whether body making a reference is a court or tribunal under Article 267 depends upon: Whether the body is established by law Whether it is permanent Whether its jurisdiction is compulsory Vaassen: Reference by dutch social security tribunal gave non-binding opinions and was not considered a court under national law. However, it was entitled to give preliminary references as it constituted to a tribunal under Article 267 as it was a permanent body whom heard adversarial disputes. Corbiau: Tax tribunal was held to not constitute to a court or tribunal under Article 267 because it was connected with one of the parties to the dispute.Arsenal Football Club: Arsenal prevented the defendant from selling Arsenal souvenirs outside Arsenals' ground.The English high court submitted a preliminary reference on trademarks. The ECJ held that there was an infringement. However, the High Court gave judgment for the defendant based upon findings of fact in the case and so refused to follow the ruling of the ECJ on the basis that the ECJ had exceeded its jurisdiction. This was later overturned in the Court of Appeal. Samex: Article 267 shows inferior national courts have the option as to whether they want to make a preliminary ruling, however, the ECJ has a detailed an intimate knowledge of the Union and it's treaties therefore it would be easier and more efficient to submit any questions to the ECJ.HP Bulmer: Lord Denning laid down guidelines as to how the national court should exercise their discretion liberally to make a preliminary ruling under Article 267R v Stock Exchange: If the national court has any real doubt it should ordinarily referRheinmuhlen: A national court cannot be deprived of it's power to make a reference by the decisions of superior courts. Denning's guidelines could not bind lower courts. Krizan: A preliminary from Slovakia challenged administrative decisions for a waste landfill site. The constitutional court overturned the judgement of the supreme court in order for a new ruling to be made. However, the constitutional court had made no reference to the ECJ. The supreme court was uncertain and so made a preliminary reference to the ECJ whom ruled that they were not bound by their superior court and could submit their own references. Cipara: The court may refuse to give a preliminary ruling where: It is obvious that the interpretation of Union law depends on the facts of the situation the problem is hypothetical the court does not have the factual or legal evidence to give a useful answer Vajnai: A demonstrator was convicted of displaying a communist symbol which was an offence in Hungary, but not in other member states. The court held they had no discretion to answer as this case was not relevant to any other member state proceedings- the interpretation depended on the facts.Melicke: Melicke was a German lawyer whom had written a book, he bought a share in the company in order to fall into litigation for the means of gaining contact with the ECJ. The court will not answer questions which are manifestly irrelevant or where there is no real dispute between the parties. Costa v ENEL: There can be no appeal from a court of last resort therefore any issues of uncertainty must be submitted to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. Kobler: If non-compliance of a top court under Article 267 deprives a party of his rights under union law, the state may be liable. If the court mistakenly (not deliberately) believes that the CILFIT criteria has been met, it will not be liable as it has acted in "good faith". Chiron: If a court of appeal refuses to allow a preliminary ruling there is a breach of remedy as the possibility of making an application for preliminary ruling to the Supreme court constitutes to a remedy. The court of appeal cannot re-open a case to which a Supreme court has refused to make a preliminary reference to. Lyckeskog: An appeal was made from the court of appeal for western Sweden. The court was not a court of last resort or a top court as it could further appeal to the Supreme Court. Krizan: the supreme court is not only permitted to make a reference but was required in order to prevent the possibility of potential infringements- a preliminary reference was not a remedy. If the Commission had bought infringement proceedings to the ECJ upon a member state and are settled before they reach the court, a national court cannot submit a preliminary reference for an issue involving settled infringement proceedings. IATA: Article 267 is not a means of remedy to a party of a case. The national court must think that the issue requires a preliminary reference as opposed to the parties themselves believing it is necessaryCILFIT: Supreme national courts are the same as lower national courts in deciding whether a question of Union Law needs to be considered. However, inferior national courts can decide whether to refer whereas supreme national courts must refer. Even where a question of Union Law is needed for judgement a Supreme court may not have an obligation to refer for a reference in certain circumstances: Previous similar decisions have already settled the issue (does this mean the nature and context does not matter?) Where the answer is so obvious it leaves no reasonable doubt (Must be equally obvious to courts of other member states and to the CoJ) Characteristic features of Union law must be taken into account: Different language drafts, Union law has same terminology to common Law but has different meanings, It must be interpreted in the context and as a whole (Van Gend- Spirit, general scheme, wording and scope of the treaty ) TWD: A private applicant who fails to challenge a Union act even though the could have done so (it was of direct and individual concern), he cannot challenge the Act later on in a National Court once it has been implemented because they failed to bring annulment proceedings when they could have done. Pringle: The Act is final once the time-limit for annulment has passed. UPA: The ECJ imposed a duty upon National Courts to apply national law in a way which enabled claimants the validity of national acts (Article 19(1) TEU)British American Tobacco: The applicants applied for a judicial review of the intention and obligation of the UK government to implement a directive of tobacco products in the future.This was admissible under national law following UPA which required national courts to be open to such challenges.Foto-Frost: Where a question of interpretation is concerned the inferior national court does not have to refer but they must for questions of validity- they can declare an act as valid but cannot declare an act as invalid and so must refer. By declaring an act as invalid one is declaring an act does not apply at all whereas issues of interpretation understands that an act applies but there is uncertainty around how. Gaston Schul: Must be made even by an inferior national court in order to reach a judgement. CILFIT only applies to questions of interpretation. The threat to uniformity of applying CILFIT to issues of validity is too great to be allowed.Zuckerfabrik: The obligation to refer questions of validity to the court of justice may be postponed where interlocutory proceedings occur. If a national measure under an invalid Union measure is suspended urgently, the national court may do so without a preliminary reference if: The court has serious doubts about the validity of a measure. A reference is made to the court on the validity there is urgency and threat of serious damage to the applicant the Union's interests are taken into account. ABNA: If an act is suspended in one member state, the other member states are not entitled to suspend it in theirs. Benedetti v Munari: A ruling on the interpretation by the CoJ is binding upon the national court as precedence.Defrenne: The court may limit the effect of it's ruling on past transactions depending upon public and private legal certainty which make it impossible to re-open the case. Infringement Proceedings:Commission v Denmark: Commission bought action against Denmark for failing to transpose a Directive. The Danish government claimed this was insufficient as it had only noted the failure to act and not set out what positive steps the government needed to take to remedy the breach. Held, the letter of formal notice’s purpose was to frame the dispute and indicate to the Member State to submit its observations. Although in this case the Commission had failed to notify of any remedial acts, this did not prevent the Danish government from submitting its observations. Letter of formal notice informing the Member State of the breach (anything not in this is inadmissible unless it does not alter the dispute subject)Commission v Ireland: Commission received complaints of illegal dumping of waste across Ireland. The Irish government argued the Commission failed to provide sufficient evidence. “Account should be taken of the fact that, where it is a question of checking the national provisions intended to ensure effective implementation of the directive… it is largely reliant on the information provided by any complaints… it is primarily for the national authorities to conduct the necessary investigations.” If the Commission notifies the state of a breach with sufficient evidence, it is the duty of the state to investigate the breach in order to prove otherwise. The onus on the Commission is only to make a prima facie caseCommission v Netherlands: Issuing of a reasoned opinion by Commission outlining the breach- “The Commission’s reasoned opinion and the [original] application must be based on the same grounds and pleas… the Court cannot examine a ground of complaint which was not formulated in the reasoned opinion… the Commission is obliged to specify precisely in that the opinion the grounds of complaint which it already raised more generally in the letter of formal notice… that requirement is essential to delimit the subject-matter of the dispute.”Commission v Germany [2003]: Lower Saxony government broke EU law on the collection of waste. The Commission bought infringement proceedings before the ECJ, the Court held this as admissible. “The Commission does not have to show there is a specific interest in bringing action… Given its role as a guardian of the Treaty, the Commission alone is therefore competent to decide whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings against a member state for failure to fulfil its obligations... The Court is responsible for determining whether or not the alleged breach of obligations exists.” whereas the commission has discretion on whether to bring forth an action, depending on the level of non-compliance and whether it is a serious problem. Commission v Greece [1999]: The Court found a breach of EU law against Greece that its hospitals’ were excluding devices that met EU law standards in its procedures for tendering medical devices. “A failure to fulfil obligations can be established only by means of sufficiently documented and detailed proof of the alleged [administrative] practice.” The duration, geographical spread and number of infringements must be considered when pursuing an infringement.Note: these documents and proceedings are entirely secret. Commission v Poland: Commission bought action against Poland’s Law of Seeds which banned the marking of genetically modified food. This violated a Directive on marketing approval. “Member states cannot rely upon public opinion [the people’s beliefs] to change a harmonising measure adopted by the Community” However, it is not contended that they may not use ethical nor religious arguments. This may suggest an infringement proceeding may be a form of public law as it focuses upon the functioning of EU law. It must be noted that it is also a constraint to action. Art 258 TFEU may also be used as a public policy tool: its main purpose it to ensure the effective functioning of EU policy. If there was no form of punishment through infringement proceedings, no policy would be enforced or realised by the member states. Commission v Italy [1988]: The Italian Court of Cassation has consistently interpreted Italian law on Custom Duties in a way that conflicted with EU law. “A Member State’s failure to fulfil obligations may... be established under at 258 TFEU whatever the agency of the State whose action or inaction is the cause of the failure to fulfil its obligations… where national legislation has be the subject of different judicial constructions, some leading to the application in compliance with Community law, other the opposite application… it is not sufficiently clear to ensure its application in compliance with Community law.” The acts and omissions of state agencies will attract liability. The state is responsible for these agencies even if they are constitutionally independent. This includes governmental, regional, local, regulatory and independent private agencies. Commission v Germany [2002]: Although it has never been put into practice, it is implied that if a state agency which is not subject to public authority, but is performing a public service, it may be considered liable as it is considered to have “special powers”. This includes private bodies. Commission v France [2001]: Mad cow disease was considered a matter of urgency and so there was an imminent risk of irreparable harm. A court may prescribe any necessary interim measures. Francovich: Decided before sanctions were enforced, state liability may not be worth the cost of proceedings, causation may be hard to prove and certain conditions may be unsatisfied. Commission v Greece [2000]: Greece’s toxic waste dump in Crete: although a fine was enforced Greece continued to dump over 6 months. The duration of the infringement, the degree of seriousness and the ability of the member state to pay and the number of votes held by the Member State in the Council must be considered. Commission v France: France failed to comply with EU fisheries law, allowing undersized fish to be sold. France did not comply with the previous judgement under Art 258 TFEU and so the Commission brought forward proceedings for a fine under Art 260 TFEU. The Commission was granted both a lump sum and a penalty payment: the lump sum was believed to punish the Member State’s behaviour; whereas the Penalty was to induce the Member State to comply as quickly as possible (they have a “coercive force”). This gave the courts full discretion as to whether both sanctions could be applied. The amendments speed up the procedure, some cases had periods of over 13 years, but a threat of fine does not always necessarily mean a judicial judgement will be enforced in the end. The assumption that a lump sum or penalty payment can be imposed was overturned. Commission v Italy [1985]: Force majeure- an unpredictable and overwhelming catastrophe making compliance impossible may be used as a defenceStar Fruit v Commission: Belgian banana trader claimed he had been prejudiced against by the French market, contrary to EU law. The trader complained to the Commission whom did not commence proceedings. Star Fruit sought to take the Commission to court for failure to act. The court held this as inadmissible: “the commission is not bound to commence proceedings… [it] has a discretion which excludes the right for individuals to require the institution to adopt a specific position… consequently the applicant cannot be entitled to raise the objection that the Commission failed to commence proceedings.” If one were to bring a complaint against the commission it would be via Art 263(4) TFEU “Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures.” This is an entirely different act of separate individual concern. Member states cannot complain during the procedure.Commission v UK: a complaint against the UK was upheld for failing to implement a regulation which provided for the compulsory installation of tachographs in lorries used to carry dangerous goods. The ECJ has jurisdiction to hear complaints that a member state has not fulfilled its obligations under the treaties, to decide whether the Commission have acted legally, and to decide disputes between member states about the subject-matter of the treaties. Commission v France: A member state cannot adopt corrective measures for the failure of another member state to comply with the Treaty.

EU

EU

EU

Directives and Primacy:Van Gend en Loos: Concerning the importation of chemicals between member states. Under Article 12 produced direct effect which "imposes obligations upon individuals and also confers rights upon them". This is clear and unconditional based upon the spirit, general scheme, wording and scope of the treaty and so must be taken up by member states (although it does not have to be further acted upon)Defrenne: Female Belgian air hostesses were required to retire earlier than men for lower pay. Article 157 TFEU for equal pay was applied despite the fact this this was a broad principle as opposed to conferring individual rights. There seemed to be a relaxation of Van Gends narrow understanding of what is sufficiently precise and unconditional. Costa v ENEL: there is a permanent limitation to sovereign rights IHG: Conflict between EC regulations and German constitution meant hat EC law could not be judged against national law. The validity of the Community measure could not be affected by allegations that it conflicted with national law. EU law is only invalid if it has an adverse effect of uniformity and efficacy. Winner Wetten: The ousting effect that a directly effective provision takes primacy over national law can be suspended under certain occasions.Inter-Environment Wallonie: A directive on environmental protection had been implemented without the correct procedure of public consultation. As this was done in a way which "strengthened the directive it was allowed until a similar one was implemented through the correct procedure. Becker: EU law imposed an obligation to exempt credit transactions from turn over tax. Held, whenever the provisions of a directive which is unconditional and sufficiently precise is not adopted within the implementation period, it may be relied upon against any national provision which is incompatible. Ratti: Directives impose a duty on member states to adopt implementing measures by a certain date, it would be unfair to base judgement on their failure to carry out this obligation. Governments are 'estopped' from denying direct effect of the effectiveness of a directive they have failed to implement. Marshall: A claim of early dismissal due to age was held to be a vertical claim as the state had acted through the Health Authority. Note: If this were a horizontal claim, the directive cannot be invoked against a private party.Faccini Dori: Directives are not capable of horizontal effect as they grant rights upon individuals and so a general vote from member states agreed that a directive may be vertically effective: it must be possible to identify the content of these rights from the directive however it must be possible to identify a causal link between the state's failure to implement the directive and the damage suffered by an individual. However, in certain cases direct effect (conferring rights to individuals) may be overlooked in order to ascertain state liability and claim damages. Foster & Others: Claimant attempted to bring a case against the state through the British Gas Corporation. The 'notion of state' includes tax, local/ regional policies, public order and safety maintenance and Health Service Authorities. If a claim falls under the notion of state it will amount to vertical direct effect, otherwise it will not succeed. von Colson: Directives are to be used to help interpretate national law consistently with the aimed objectives. Incidental effectMarleasing: All national legislation is to be interpreted in light of EU law, irrespective of whether national provisions were adopted before or after the directive. This may allow horizontal cases to have directives applied "Indirectly". Angelidaki: when national courts apply domestic law they are to interpretate it based upon the directive whether the law was adopted before or after the directive. This was held to be sensible despite pre-existing law. If consistent interpretation makes one criminally liable whom should not be liable or disproportionately portrays the liability as more serious as it should be, the court may rule as an exception to the duty. The duty of consistent interpretation is to be applied only where the period of transposition for the directive has passed. Adeneler: Greece was due to have Directive implemented requiring good measures for a fixed contract. The Directive was to be implemented when the time limit of the directive has expired as national courts have an obligation to read law in conformity with a directive from the date of transposition. CIA Security: breach of the Directive 83/189 procedure to notify the commission and member states of the draft renders the technical regulations inapplicable to individuals (horizontal cases).Unilever: Olive oil was not labeled in compliance with technical regulations. Because the claim was bought by an individual who had no rights over the regulation the claim failed. National courts are required to refuse to apply technical regulations adopted in a way that goes against the procedure of proposed adoption. This created neither rights nor obligations upon individuals. Océano Grupo Editorial: a directive may exclude (primacy) or substitute (direct effect) an incompatible national rule with the directive. Werner Mangold: Lawyer discriminated against employee due to age. Directive 2078 is not a blanket prohibition upon Nation Law and so need not be applied.However, the principle of equal treatment existed separately from the directive. Thus, the discrimination on grounds of age constituted to a general principle of union law and could be applied to horizontal cases. Kücükdeveci: the prohibition against discrimination against the grounds of age need not be applied where to situation had no relevance to the directive (e.g. if the directive has expired).Römer: discrimination on the grounds of age reflects the general principle surrounding the general principle of sexual orientation. When a directive is found to enshrine a general principle of law, individuals can rely upon the principle in cases which apply to union law. Dominguez: The right to pay annual leave cannot be applied directly in horizontal cases. The general principle and directive have vertical effect. Reaction of the National Courts: Solange II: The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany asserted a constitutional power of its own to police the application of fundamental rights itself Brunner: Germany secured the right to ensure respect from EU constitutions in their power Re Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon: They also asserted the right to upon Germany's constitutional Identity. Factortame: European Communities Act is protected against implied repeal- Union law takes precedence over an act of parliament. Thoburn: If there was an English Measure which contained a rule of guaranteed fundamental/constitutional right over the EU, would it have primacy over an EU act? There could be no appeal to the ECJ Open for any individual to bring action. EC Commission can bring infringement proceeds against resisting member states. An attempt of reunion and resolution would be made through political proceedings. If the member state still resists the member sate may be considered to withdraw depending upon their importance and significance in the EU. The ECJ responds though securing rights by forming general principles of Union Law and took more responsibility for policing the Union's powers. Treaty establishing the Constitution of Europe would replace all other treaties enforcing coded primacy over the member states. However, this was not passed as France and the Netherlands voted it down. The Treaty of Lisbon diluted the doctrine of primacy by conditions laid down in case law. Slovak Pensions: Czech Republic constitutional court declared the EU powers as ultra vires (beyond powers/ without authority) and consequently choose to disapply EU law and apply their own.Francovich: Italy failed to implement a directive for the proptection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer. Held, member states are obliged to make good damage on individuals caused by breaches of EU law for which the state can be held responsible (article 4(2) TEU). The advocate general suggested that temporal effect should be limited i.e. judgement does not take place to past, only to present and future. This was rejected as previous case law had already implied state liability. Brassierie du Pécheur & Factortame: Claims for damages of EU law are bought to national courts whom must make available certain remedies so long as: Claimant must show infringed EU was meant to enforce rights on individuals, Infringement must be sufficiently serious Causal link must exist between the injury to the person and the infringement. From Article 340 TEU, the principle of state liability cannot be deduced. Hedley Lomas: Where to defendant state was not called upon to make any legislative choices and has limited discretion, the mere infringement of Union law may be sufficiently serious to constitute to a breach. Brinkman: Failure to give give effect to directive within the time limit automatically constitutes to a sufficiently serious breach. Additionally, if damages are not lain down within the time limit this is a breach in itselfKöbler: Infringement by a national court of last resort. If a national court of last resort delivers a decision as a result of which a party is deprived a a right which union law intended them to enjoy and causes them to suffer loss, he can bring proceeding against the case concerned through the principle of state liability. Res judicata prevents individuals from constantly re-litigating the same decision once it had reached the highest court. This does not apply if one is "re-opening" the new case with a completely separate/new claim. Annulments:ERTA: Dispute between Commission + Council as to whether the commission or member states had to right to negotiate a European Agreement with non-member states. When the community implements a common policy the member states no longer have an individual or collective right to undertake obligations with third party/ international countries as this would be incompatible with the uniform application of union law. Only the Community can exclusively negotiate and conclude external agreements, this suggests a limitation upon the member state's autonomous power. Implied powers doctrine; an implied international legal personality can be assumed which seems to conflict with this ruling. Held, all measures adopted by institutions which are intended to have legal force can be bought for an action of annulment. IBM: A measure can be judicially reviewed with it is a formal legal act and when it is intended to produce legal effects. The measure must bring abut a distinct change in the applicant's legal standing. IBM challenged proceedings against them for breach of EU competition law. An act is open to review if it definitively lays down the position of the commission/council as a conclusion instead of a provisional measure (leading to the conclusion). In this case proceedings were merely preparatory as so did not compromise IBM's rights. Reynolds Tobacco: There was no distinct change in the applicant's legal position. The applicants were a cigarette company whom were suspected of smuggling cigarettes into the EU. The Commission bought civil proceedings against them in the US. In the Us court the commission was seeking an injunction and damages for lost customs duties and VAT. This did not satisfy the IBM test as starting the legal proceedings did not determine the party's obligations.Les Verts: french political group sought the annulment of measures adopted by the EU parliament. The court held that one could challenge the EU parliament under what is now Article 263. It would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Treaty for measures adopted by the parliament to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties to be excluded from the scope of the action for annulment. Commission v European Parliament and Council: the European Parliament sought the annulment of Council Decision in regards the surveillance of the sea external borders. Omega Air: The validity of a regulation restricting the use of aeroplanes at European Airports was questioned. Omega was an aircraft trader, they were developing a programme for engine replacement that would meet with the regulation's noise standards. Plaumann: Clementine importation; a person is not individual concerned merely because it carries a particular commercial activity which could be practiced by anyone. The clementine importation would affect all importers in the past, present and future. There was nothing to make the claimant particularly concerned. Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami: The Paumann Formula stated that in order for an act to be of individual concern, the act must affect them in the same way of an addressee of a decision due to attributes particular to them alone. Direct concern = an applicant must show that at the time the act was adopted, the effect it produced on him is substantially certain.Alacan v Commission: Decision adopted by the Commission addressed to Belgium disallowed importation of aluminium at a discounted rate. Alcan was an aluminium business whom believed this decision affected them. However, because there was no certainty that he would be using imported aluminium, his claim was dismissed. There must be no doubt of the discretion and the direct effect. Piraiki-Patraiki: Applicants sought annulment of decision authorising France to restrict import of cotton yarn. This was held to go against the free movement of goods. Originally the applicants were not directly concerned as they had no idea whether the French Government were to actually enforce the authorisation. However, because the French government had asked for the authorisation it was assumed that the decision would be applied and so the action was of direct concern. It was also of individual concern of some of the applicants whom had entered into contracts before the decision was adopted- they were a closed class of individuals (the commission should have taken into account the effect upon the parties of these contracts). Buralux: Court dismissed the challenge to a council regulation on the removal of waste as inadmissible. Contracts existed for disposing of waste from Germany to France. The French authorities adopted an action prohibiting household waste importation.The court upheld that the applicants were not individually concerned as this was not a closed group, it affected everyone within France and Germany whom were in the commercial business of waste disposal despite the fact that they were already in contracts. UPA: UPA was a Spanish trade association representing Spanish farmers whom wished to bring an action for annulment against the council's decision to introduce new regulations which abolished aid to olive farmers. When bringing action against regulatory acts which do not entail implementing measures, direct concern= a substantial adverse effect on the applicant's interests. It is the responsibility of the member states to establish legal remedies and for national courts to interpretate national law in such a way that allows claimants to bring the procedure forward (now Article 19(1) TEU). Jégo-Quéré: Challenged a commission regulation which imposed a minimum mesh size for fishing nets. Held, the applicant was not individually concerned under the Plaumann test particularly because no restrictions or obligations were imposed, merely a regulation. However, a remedy must still be bought forward, this must be done by the Member state themselves as opposed to the Commission. Inuit Tapitiit Kanatami: Measure adopted to restrict trade of seal products under legislative procedure. Regulatory Acts= All acts of general application except for legislative acts (those adopted under both ordinary and special legislative procedure- Article 188 TFEU). As this measure was therefore legislative the applicant must establish direct and individual concern. There was held to be no individual concern as it was expressed in general terms and applied equally to all whom were covered by it. Microban: Commission decision prevented the use of an additive which the applicants manufactured. This was held to be a regulatory act under Article 263 and did not entail implementing measures. It was also of direct concern to the applicants because it was a restrictive prohibition.Rutgers: Applicants sought annulment of decision which did not entail implementing measures. Held, under Article 263 this was of general application even through it had been enforced by an Agency as opposed to the Commission itself. However although the applicants had standing the regulatory act was held to not be unlawful. There was nothing wrong with the substance of the act.

EU