The Doctrine Of Direct Effect

1629 Words7 Pages
The doctrines of direct effect and supremacy are extremely important because they require national courts to apply European Union law over any conflicting provision of national law. This essay will first consider the doctrine of direct effect, its advantages and disadvantages and it will go on examining the doctrine of supremacy, how it can be assessed and its relation with the doctrine of direct effect. Finally, some conclusion will be drawn as to how the direct effect and supremacy of Union law provisions are related to each other and how can be really helpful for individuals and member states when looking at the big picture, even if in some situations they might be seen as inappropriate. Direct effect is not expressly mentioned by any…show more content…
As opposed to Van Gend en Loos which leaves the matter unresolved, Defrenne allows horizontal direct effect. Therefore, the individuals are able to invoke Treaty rights and provisions of regulations against the State and other individuals before national courts. Nonetheless, the situation is slightly different when it comes to directives. Article 288 states that a directive must be implemented into national law. Even if it does not fulfil the second criteria of the test in Van Gend en Loos about implemented measures, in the latter case of Van Duyn v Home Office it was held that directives can be directly effective provided that they are clear and unconditional. There are conditions, however, in the case of Ratti , it was held that for a directive to have direct effect on the member state the implementation deadline must have passed. In addition, in the case of Marshall , the court decided that directives can have a vertical direct effect but not a horizontal direct effect. This decision was upheld in Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl . This protects the individuals from being sued for matters that the State is responsible for. Nevertheless, these decisions were strongly contested, especially in the employment context. Why should people be able to sue their employer only if they are a public body? What about people working in the private sector? It could be argued that only members of parliament
Open Document