Regulations made by the Council (with the consent of the Parliament) or the Commission (within its delegated powers) have general application. They are binding in their entirety and are directly applicable in all Member States. Regulations can deal with matters of minor detail or with fundamental issues. Council Regulation 1612/68, for example, sets out principles for promoting the free movement of workers (including students) by abolishing discrimination with regards to employment, trade union rights, housing, social and tax benefits, and access to training. An individual can rely on the provisions of a Regulation before a domestic court, either against government or against another individual. Similarly, an individual may be prosecuted for violating a Regulation. Examples of cases which involve this are MacMahon v DES [1983]. An Irishman accepted for a teacher training course in the UK sought a declaration that he was entitled to a maintenance grant and low fees on the same basis as a British student. The judge applied Council regulation 1612/68, which is quite clear on the matter where vocational training is concerned, and granted the declaration sought.
Directives are issued by the Council with the consent of the Parliament, or occasionally by the Commission under delegated powers. They are binding as to the result to be achieved, but leave the choice of form and method to the individual Member States. Directives are binding on member states but not on individuals, and cannot generally be relied upon in domestic courts. A Member State which fails to implement a Directive by the required date is in breach of its obligations and can be called to by the Commission before the Court of Justice. When a member state persistently fails to comply with a Directive, the Court of Justice has power to impose a financial penalty. The amount of any penalty imposed depends on three factors: the seriousness of the breach, including its effects on private and public interests; the member state's ability to pay; and the duration of the infringement, which is taken into account by setting the penalty at a fixed rate per day until compliance is secured. An example of a case whereby a member state failed to comply with a directive would be Marshall V Southampton Health Authority [1986]. Mrs. Marshall was forced to retire at the age of 62 from her employment with the NHS. This was a breach of the Equal Treatment Directive 1976. The Court said Mrs. Marshall was entitled to succeed, and could use the provisions of the Directive against her employers (who were a member state) because the U.K. had not properly implemented the directive. Another example would be Gibson V East Riding [2000]. A part-time worker claimed compensation from her employers for their failure to allow her four weeks' paid holiday as required by the Working Time Directive 93/104/EC. At the time this directive had not yet been implemented by the UK, though the date set for implementation had passed. The Court of Appeal said the provisions of the directive were not sufficiently precise to have direct effect, making them enforceable by an individual against the state. The "direct effect" of an unimplemented Directive can be relied upon only in legal action against the responsible government but not against another individual. However, when an individual suffers loss (through another individual) because the government has not implemented a Directive by the deadline, he/she may be able to bring a claim against the government. The Court has given Directives a measure of direct effect, partly to make them more effective and partly to ensure that no Member State can rely on its own default as a defense. Once the time limit for the implementation of a Directive has expired (but not before), an individual can rely on the provisions of a Directive against their government.
Decisions differ from Regulations in that they generally concern specific people or institutions. They can be addressed to Member States, to corporations or to individual citizens and are made by the council or commission as a formal method enunciating policies or initiating actions. An example is Council Decision 89/469, concerning certain protective measures relating to Bovine Spongiform encephalopathy in the UK which was adopted in the wake of the ‘mad cow’ disease scare .Like directives; decisions have a direct effect against a ‘public body’. Examples of cases that involve this are Grad V Finanzamt Traunstein [1971]. A Council Decision addressed to all member states set out procedures and timetables for the introduction of a uniform system of calculating "turnover tax". A company complained that the German authorities had not yet introduced this system; the Court said the Decision was sufficiently clear and precise to have direct effect.
