• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The least one can expect from a Court is that it be consistent and promote legal certainty. If the Court of Justice decides that directives only impose obligations on Member States and only after the period for their transposition has expired, liti

Extracts from this document...


"The least one can expect from a Court is that it be consistent and promote legal certainty. If the Court of Justice decides that directives only impose obligations on Member States and only after the period for their transposition has expired, litigants, especially private litigants, would be able to rely on that. They should not have to meander their way through obscure doctrines to second guess whether the Court might find some way to give effect to a directive prior to the transposition deadline or to make it produce effects detrimental to individuals." DISCUSS The inherent need in any system for there to be legal certainty is a sentiment, which has long been expressed by academics alike, seen perhaps most influentially by Albert Venn Dicey, in his analysis of the rule of law. He stated that to do otherwise, would be to govern arbitrarily. This essay will seek to explore how the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has adapted new rules, contrary to what they have previously stated, on the ability to give effect to directives and whether they have perhaps entered into the 'political thicket', which contravenes Montesquieu's doctrine of separation of powers. The initial part of the assertion makes reference to judgements of the Court and Treaty Articles. The definition in Article 249 shows that: directives have distinct objectives, in that they are 'binding as the result to be achieved', but in effect create obligations on Member States to pass national laws to achieve those objectives within a set period of time. ...read more.


This shows one of the harsh injustices faced by litigants, in that there is a poor rationale underlying the absence of horizontal direct effect of a Directive. Private litigants suffer the worse, as a consequence of the Marshall ruling in that, for example, a private employee may not rely on a Directive but a state employee may. As S Douglas-Scoot commented: the ruling provokes unjust and anomalous situations, particularly in the field of labour law, where the scope of the Equal treatment Directive has been reduced.'9 One such obscure doctrine, that the ECJ has created alongside direct effect, is the concept of indirect effect. The principle was developed in Von Colson10, where it was stated that: 'since the duty under Article 10 to ensure fulfilment of an obligation was binding on all national courts...it follows...courts are required to interpret their national law in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive'. This concept of sympathetic interpretation thus ignored the problem of horizontal effect and vertical effect, and in fact ignored direct effect in general. However, the ECJ left ambiguous the question of to which national law, the process of indirect effect could actually apply. The House of Lords, thus subsequently refused to apply the principle in Duke, even though it would have provided a remedy for the applicant. In Marleasing11, the definition of indirect effect was expanded in saying: "the national court asked to interpret national law is bound to do so in every way possible in the light of the text and the aims of the directive to achieve the results envisaged by it." ...read more.


This is an inadequate justification, because it begs to ask what about the two other methods aforementioned above. If indirect effect were used, then the UK would have been forced to comply with the Directive. But more importantly, had direct effect been used, in vein prescribed in Ratti, then the UK's inability to satisfy the Directive's requirement would be purely academic and of no concern, as the Directive would have become directly effective. It is decisions such as these, which see the helter-skelter of the ECJ's jurisdiction. The ECJ has often cited the concepts of 'supremacy' and 'supra-nationalism' as justifications for their judicial activist approach. Whilst these concepts remain fundamental to the functioning of the entire organism that is the EU, the ECJ must be careful not to attempt to wear more hats than they have been assigned, in their quest for creating a coherent Europe. As seen, in attempting to do so, they have reached conflicting decisions, which makes it hard for litigants at times to know what to expect from their judiciary. 1 (Case 41/74) [1974] ECR 1337 2 (Case 26/62) [1963] ECR 1 3 (Case 148/78) [1979] ECR 1629 4 (Case 152/84) [1986] QB 401 5 (Case C-188/89) [1990] ECR I-3313 6 [1995] IRLR 15 7 1 CMLR 1045 8 [1988] 2 WLR 359 9 Constitutional Law of the European Union, By S Douglas Scott p296 10 (Case 79/83) [1984] ECR 1921 11 (Case C-106/89) [1990] ECR I-4135 12 [1989] 1 All ER 1134 13 Textbook on EC Law, By J Steiner, p109 14 (Cases C-6 and 9?90) [1991] ECR I-5357 15 (Case C-46) [1996] ECR I-1029 16 Ratti 17 (Case C-392/93) [1996] ECR I-1631 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree European Union Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree European Union Law essays

  1. Company Law and Corporate Governance

    It is now five years since the previous Hampel Review of Corporate Governance; we cannot afford to be complacent about these things." 32 Higgs, D. (2003) Review of the Role and Effectiveness of Non-Executive Directors, Department of Trade and Industry, London 33 Positive opinions of Higgs: 1.

  2. EU - problem question

    whose is lack of remedy is the failure of Member States, in this case the UK. The Francovich case is an important one for our purposes. An Italian scheme to provide minimum complication for workers on the insolvency of their employers was found to be in breach of a requirement under Directive 80/987.

  1. The Principle of Direct Effect

    entirely, and El Tel will be able to seek the same redress as if they had failed completely to implement the directive. Again, El Tel's strongest argument will be that the State is liable for failure to implement according to its legal obligations.

  2. Eu Directives Problem Case. Difficulties arise in situations such as the one faced by ...

    It could never be horizontally directly effective.8For this reason, Directives are only a problem where they are unimplemented or improperly implemented9. A properly implemented Directive however becomes part of the national law, thus an individual would rely on that national law which would be enforceable against the State10 and other individuals.

  1. Direct effect is a community concept developed by the court of justice to apply ...

    to be implemented, nor does it seem to be based on any conditions. Thus seems to be unconditional as it does not require any dependency on the UK authorities. (Ministere public Luxembourg v Muller)3. An individual who is a citizen of the member state which is recipient of a directive

  2. Are EC directives directly applicable in member states?

    on his own labelling practices, which weren't illegal according to article 9 of the directive 77/728. But the ECJ held that since the time limit for the implementation of the relevant section of the directive had not expired it wasn't directly effective.

  1. The rule against the horizontal direct effect of directives should be abandoned" Discuss.

    those provisions of EU law that immediately become part of the law of that member state, without the need of any further implementation by that member state. Whereas the term directly effective means that a provision creates individual rights that a national court is required to protect.8 It can be

  2. EU Freedom of Establishment. In this essay I will discuss the definition of establishment ...

    freedom to provide services may be limited only by rules which are justified by imperative reasons relating to the public interest and which apply to all persons and undertakings pursing an activity in the State of destination in so far as that interest is not protected by rules which the

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work