Eu Direct Effect Of Directives
A simple quizz for revising cases on direct effect of directives.
- 1.
Van Gend en Loos [1963] came up with the doctrine of direct effect in relation to Treaty directives and considered that a Treaty provision could have direct effect provided three conditions are met. Which three:
- A.
Sufficiently clear and precise
- B.
Conditional
- C.
Unconditional
- D.
Can operate without any further action being taken by Community or national authorities
- E.
Can operate independent of judicial decisions
Correct Answer(s)
A. Sufficiently clear and precise
C. Unconditional
D. Can operate without any further action being taken by Community or national authoritiesExplanation
The three conditions for a Treaty provision to have direct effect, as stated by Van Gend en Loos [1963], are that it must be sufficiently clear and precise, unconditional, and able to operate without any further action being taken by Community or national authorities. Additionally, it should be able to operate independently of judicial decisions.Rate this question:
-
- 2.
In Case 41/74 Van Duyn v Home Office the court held that Van Duyn could rely on a directive that had not been implemented in a claim against the Home Office against their refusal to allow her entry to the UK to commence work with the Church of Scientology. What were the reasons given by the court for saying that the directive can be directly effective?
- A.
Article 249 expressly says that directives are to have direct effect
- B.
The useful effect of directives would be diminished inf individuals could not rely on them in their national courts
- C.
The state should be prevented from relying on its own failure to implement a directive as a defence against an individual
- D.
It would be incompatible with binding effect of directives if individuals were prevented from relying on it in their national court
- E.
National court discretion to refer questions under article 234 implies that these acts may be invoked by individuals in national courts.
Correct Answer(s)
B. The useful effect of directives would be diminished inf individuals could not rely on them in their national courts
D. It would be incompatible with binding effect of directives if individuals were prevented from relying on it in their national court
E. National court discretion to refer questions under article 234 implies that these acts may be invoked by individuals in national courts.Explanation
The court provided three reasons for saying that the directive can be directly effective. Firstly, Article 249 expressly states that directives are to have direct effect. Secondly, if individuals could not rely on directives in their national courts, the useful effect of directives would be diminished. Lastly, it would be incompatible with the binding effect of directives if individuals were prevented from relying on them in their national court. Additionally, the court noted that the national court's discretion to refer questions under Article 234 implies that individuals may invoke these acts in national courts.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
Pubblico Ministero v Tullio Ratti [1979] concerned a directive on labelling of solvents and varnishes. Ratti adopted measures to comply with directive. Italy prosecuted him for not relying on national provisions. He sought to rely on the directive in his defence. The court gave three reasons why he could do so. Although in the end, they held that he could not as the date for implementation of the directive had not passed. What were the reasons given by the court as to why Ratti should (if the date had passed) be able to rely on directive.
- A.
It would be incompatible with the binding effect of directives to exclude the possibility of them being relied on in national courts
- B.
The effectiveness of the directive would be weakened if people could not rely on it or national courts take it into account
- C.
The duty of consistent interpretation requires courts to consider the directive in claims against citizens
- D.
National court discretion to refer questions under article 234 implies that these acts may be invoked by individuals in national courts.
- E.
The state should not be able to rely on it's own failure to implement a directive in a claim against an individual
Correct Answer(s)
A. It would be incompatible with the binding effect of directives to exclude the possibility of them being relied on in national courts
B. The effectiveness of the directive would be weakened if people could not rely on it or national courts take it into account
E. The state should not be able to rely on it's own failure to implement a directive in a claim against an individualExplanation
The court gave three reasons as to why Ratti should be able to rely on the directive if the date had passed. Firstly, it would be incompatible with the binding effect of directives to exclude the possibility of them being relied on in national courts. Secondly, the effectiveness of the directive would be weakened if people could not rely on it or if national courts did not take it into account. Lastly, the state should not be able to rely on its own failure to implement a directive in a claim against an individual.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority [1986] (Marshall No 1) the court set out the rule against horizontal direct effect of directives. Finish this sentence from the judgment with a quote from Article 249:the binding nature of a directive... exists only in relation to '........ ................. ........ .. ......... ... ... ............'. If follows that a directive may not of itself impose obligations on an individual and that aprovision of a directive may not be relied on against such a person.
Correct Answer(s)
each Member State to which it is addressed
each member state to which it is addressedExplanation
In Marshall (No 1) the exposition of the rule was not necessary as the Court considered that, in any case, the Health Authority was an organ of the State, so Marshall could rely on the Equal Treatment Directive against the health authority.Rate this question:
- 5.
In what case did the court, to much controversy, say that the Community can only impose obligations on individuals by way of regulation?Hint: It concerned a directive on door-stop selling. Reaffirmed the rule that directives cannot have horizontal direct effect.Hint 2: Not Marshall (No 1)
Correct Answer(s)
Faccini Dori v Recreb [1994]Explanation
In the case of Faccini Dori v Recreb [1994], the court controversially stated that the Community can only impose obligations on individuals through regulations. This case specifically dealt with a directive on door-stop selling and reaffirmed the rule that directives cannot have horizontal direct effect. This means that individuals cannot rely directly on directives to bring legal action against other individuals or private entities. This decision sparked controversy as it limited the direct impact of directives on individuals and emphasized the need for regulations to impose obligations.Rate this question:
- 6.
In Pubblico Ministero v Tullio Ratti [1979] the Court considered that a state cannot have defaulted in its duty to implement a Directive until the date for implementation has passed. However, another case provides that states have duty from taking any measures in the interim liable seriously to compromise the attainment of the prescribed result. What case is that?
Correct Answer(s)
C-129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie v Region Wallon [1997]
C-129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie v Region Wallon
Inter-Environnement Wallonie v Region Wallon [1997]Explanation
The case that provides that states have a duty to take measures in the interim liable seriously to compromise the attainment of the prescribed result is C-129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie v Region Wallon [1997]. This case establishes that states cannot simply wait until the deadline for implementing a Directive has passed without taking any action. They must actively work towards achieving the goals set out in the Directive, even before the deadline has arrived.Rate this question:
- 7.
Foster v British Gas [1990] the Court held that unconditional and sufficiently precise provisions of a directive may be relied on against organisations or bodies which are
- A.
Subject to authority or control of the state
- B.
Subject to authority and control of the state
- C.
Or have special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals
- D.
And have special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals.
Correct Answer(s)
A. Subject to authority or control of the state
C. Or have special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individualsExplanation
The Court in Foster v British Gas [1990] held that organisations or bodies can be subject to the provisions of a directive if they are either subject to the authority or control of the state, or if they have special powers beyond those that result from normal rules between individuals. This means that even if an organization or body is not directly controlled by the state, they can still be held accountable for complying with the directive if they have special powers or authority that go beyond what is normally expected in relationships between individuals.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Foster v British Gas [1990] then goes on to state that in any event they may be relied on against a body has been made responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a ......... ............ under the control of the State and has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules aplicable in relations between individuals.
Correct Answer(s)
public serviceExplanation
Foster v British Gas [1990] states that the special powers conferred upon a body responsible for providing a public service, under the control of the State, can be relied upon. In other words, if a body is mandated by the State to provide a public service and has been given special powers beyond the normal rules applicable between individuals, then those special powers can be used as a defense in a legal case. This means that the correct answer is "public service."Rate this question:
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 20, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
Apr 12, 2009Quiz Created by
Smj44