The Role Of The Direct Effect And State Liability

There are two types of direct effect: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal direct effect is between private individuals, where ‘if a provision of EU law has horizontal direct effect it can be enforced by an individual in a national court’ . Indirect effect is that where ‘obligation on national courts to interpret national law consistently with EU law’. It may be used where the directive is incapable of horizontal direct effect. State liability can overcome the limitations of direct and indirect effect, it ‘provides a right to damages where a Member State has breached EU law, causing loss to the applicant.’

“…judicial and legislative developments *have+ made the *infringement+ procedure [come] of age- from a rarely used, opaque and policy-driven procedure, it has now become a common, fairly transparent and highly technical procedure.” Prete & Smuldres “The coming of age of infringement proceedings” (2010) 47 CMLR 9 Has the infringement procedure finally “come of age”? Critically outline the key features of the Article 258 TFEU procedure and relevant caselaw. Article 258 TFEU (Formerly Art 226 EC) empowers the European Commission to deliver a reasoned opinion to a member state when it considers that the state has failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaties. The action seeks to “fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty” and to “obtain a

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.

The CJEU case-law on horizontal direct effect of directives arguably lacks consistency in regards to the application of the general principle. The principle of direct effect was established in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen. Although there is no set definition of direct effect, a broader definition was provided in Van Gend en Loos that it “can be expressed as the capacity of a provision of EU law to be invoked before a national court.” However, Van Dyun v. Home Office established that directives are capable of direct effect. Furthermore, Marshall v. Southampton established that there could only be vertical direct effect of directives. This stringent principle has arguable ignited the highly contested debate of whether or not horizontal direct effect is applicable to directives or if directives could only have vertical direct effect. However, this essay shall explore the lack of consistency in case-law regarding horizontal direct effect of directives. Firstly, this paper will delve into the case-law of the topic of horizontal direct effect of directives in efforts to try to highlight its consistency in its approach. Secondly, the paper will use case law and the opinion of academics (enter the name of the academics later) to highlight its inconsistencies using the legal mechanisms that have been introduced by the Courts to try to compensate for the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives. Namely, indirect effect, incidental horizontal

The purpose of this research is to discover the main challenges facing the EU in the near future, by showing the economic and legal problems that the EU will face. These problems include how migration, bailouts and terrorism affect the EU economy. Furthermore it will look at anti-EU sentiments around Europe, which has appeared to spread across rapidly, due to Euro Crises. Moreover, the Legal problems that the EU will face, such as: the process of obtaining EU citizenship enabling migration and cultural clashes, whilst also looking at the statute that enables free movement of goods and people, resulting in mass immigration and the European Convention on Human Rights. This paper will evaluate EU principles that affect the UK constitution, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the Costa v ENEL (1964) CMLR 425 case being evidence proving that the EU will face challenges concerning its law being more superior than national law, Van Gend en loos (1963) ECR 1. Where a similar principle was set and the “two-speed Europe”, which, is the idea that different member states should integrate at different levels, as it is believed that the more member states in the EU the harder it is to find a consensus amongst difficult agendas, making the EU law very inconsistent. It will be related it back to the question of ‘what are the main challenges facing the EU in the near future?’

There are three theories of liability direct, vicarious, and enterprise. Direct liability has four types that are direct one of which is the principle in the 1st degree aka "the Perpetrator" which is someone who committed the crime willing on his own accord. The second is the principle in the 2nd degree aka "the Accomplice" which is someone who assisted the assailant with the delegation of the crime while also wanting to commit the crime at the same time he/she is also present during the scene of the crime. An accessory before the Fact is not present in the area of where the crime was committed, but helped by either counseling, encouraging, or urging the delegation of a crime. The Pinkerton Rule states that all accessories are liable for predictable actions that lead to being criminalized hence the violation of the criminal agreement. Even if the accomplice is not present at the scene of a committed felony crime they are still guilty. The two aspects are the specific resolve towards committing the crime the aiding of crime or encouragement towards the committing of a crime. A death penalty is only ever enforced on those who have committed the murder. The next type is the accessory after the fact which is someone who knows he/she has committed a crime and still aid with disturbing the case like hiding the assailant away from the police for example. They will also be charged with the felony since they know they committed the crime. Relations like with family is a type of

This phrase—“measures having equivalent effect” (MEEs) (to Quantitative Restrictions on imports)—is the phrase in the article which has given rise to so much political controversy and debate, both within the CJEU and also amongst academics in the field of EU law. Even ‘quantitative restriction’ (QR), the scope of which concept the rest of the Article appears to hang on, is not explicitly (or, in fact, at all: not even with the standard ‘QRs include…[non exhaustive list]…) defined in the Treaty, but the CJEU has held that:_

This scenario clearly states that the nurse-anesthetist had the duty of care when administering the anesthesia to the patient. With the assistance of the physician she neglected her duties by not properly inserting the tube into the patient’s trachea, instead it was placed into the patient’s esophagus causing an eruption and lack of the proper oxygen to the patent.

A.C. 1.3 - Identify organisational and personal responsibilities and liabilities under equality legislation and/or codes of practice

Enforcing the European Union legal system is diverse and done on multiple platforms; through not only actions taken against member states for breach of their obligations, but also, for example, through the use of direct effect1. Article 267 TFEU; an organism devised to practice private enforcement of EU law before national courts, has been critical to ensure uniform interpretation and application of EU law in member states. References for preliminary rulings occur when the national courts are presented with a question of EU law due to uncertainty of the provision. The national court will therefore ‘make a reference to the Court of Justice (COJ) to obtain a preliminary ruling on any point of EU law relevant to the proceedings’2. In

To identify issues facing by Lenneke living and running ballet shoes business in Scotland, A few issues arises with her when she travelled to attend trade exhibition in The Hague, the Netherlands. Firstly, she was threatened and intimidated by the Dutch traders, those called her as a Traitor. Secondly, they tried to impose ban on her for next exhibition. Thirdly, the Dutch police ignored her complaints. Fourthly, the Scottish Government intends to impose excise tax which could affect her business. Before addressing these issues and concerns of Lenneke, it is fair to understand the background of the EU, such as why the EU created and what was the main purpose for that? How far EU law supreme and has direct effect on member states. What does

Contingent Liability is a condition that refers to the possibility of a future event happening and addresses the responsibility of the party liable should the event take place. In today’s real estate market both sellers and buyers may have contingencies stated in the terms and conditions for selling and purchasing a home. The most common contingent liability are guarantees to debt.

The steering committee has determined that one alternative must be a member of the European Union (EU) while the other cannot be a member of the EU. Subject to

Member States’ positive obligation to take appropriate measures in accordance with EU Treaties and the Charter is set out under Article 4(3) TEU. Any derogation from the Union’s Law will not be justified and will be deemed inconsistent with the Treaty, unless the Treaty confers such power to Member States expressly. The Directive in concern expressly allows derogation for Member States to decide on when situations will be deemed permissible. In some occasions, EU Treaty confers upon Member States power to act unilaterally, however the discretion is limited. It can only be conferred upon expressly by Article 4 TEU. Moreover, Member States are

One of the main objectives of the European Union (EU) is the establishment of the internal market, which shall consist of “area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured. The internal market is based upon a customs union achieved through the abolition of the imposition of customs duties and charges having an equivalent effect and the prohibition of discriminatory taxes on intra-EU imports. The internal market is enhanced by the provisions on free movement of workers, freedom of establishment, free movement of services, and free movement of capital. Whereas Articles 28 to 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provide for the establishment of an EU common external tariff and the elimination of customs duties, Articles 34 and 35 of the TFEU (with exceptions under Article 36) go further, and prohibit quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect. Taken together, Articles 28 to 32 and 34 to 36 serve to ensure the free movement of goods within the EU and to facilitate the operation of the internal market.