Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
EU law impact on England+Wales - Coggle Diagram
EU law impact on England+Wales
HORIZONTAL DIRECT EFFECT
STATE FAILS TO IMPLEMENT DIRECTIVE WITHIN TIME LIMIT
Claim is NOT against an 'ARM OF STATE'
individual CANNOT RELY on the directive AGAINST PRIVATE employer or an individual
Where the ‘defendant’ is a private individual or organisation, the claimant can still have a right to compensation from the government
Italy v Francovich (1992) - the “Francovich Principle”
can ONLY sue AGAINST another INDIVIDUAL or BUSINESS
Duke v GEC Reliance Ltd (1988) - unable to rely on directive as her employer was a private company
There are conditions though - Dori v Recreb (1995):
Directive must give rights to individuals
Those rights must be clear
Claimant’s loss must be clearly connected to the government’s failure to implement the Directive
VERTICAL DIRECT EFFECT
STATE FAILS TO IMPLEMENT DIRECTIVE WITHIN TIME LIMIT
Claim is AGAINST an 'ARM OF STATE'
individual CAN RELY on the directive AGAINST PRIVATE employer or an individual
the directive must give CLEAR and SPECIFIC rights
Van Duyn v Home Office (1974)
can ONLY sue an 'ARM OF STATE'
Marshall v Southampton Health Authority (1986) unequal treatment - benefit regulation was not implemented - she sued
The CJEU has developed a broad definition of “arm of the state”
Foster v British Gas (1990) - British Gas had been privatised shortly before this case - however - government still had some shares - so still included it as an “arm of the state”
DIRECT EFFECT
an EU law that an individual can rely on as authority for their case - this applies to laws in Treaties and Regulations
can be done through an Act of Parliament (Consumer Protection Act 1987) but mainly through delegated legislation (SIs) (Working Time Regulations 1998)