Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EU Law Lecture 3 Notes
EU Law Lecture 3 Notes
- Under equal treatment directive, claimant claimed unfair dismissal on the grounds of
age discrimination.
- Claimed against her employer, the Southampton area health authority.
- Mrs Marshall claimed a right under equal treatment directive because she thought
she had the rights not be dismissed for a certain age.
- It’s a horizontal case
- Denied on the grounds that the directive did not have DE against herself and her
employer (horizontal relationship).
- ‘it follows that a directive may not of itself impose an obligation not of itself impose
an obligation on an individual’.
- The SAHA its related to the NHS/ ministry of health they are MS which makes it’s a
vertical relationship.
+ Horizontal DE of directives:
- It is clear that there is no horizontal DE of directives but two ways of getting around
it the first is to consider the relationship not a horizontal one but rather vertically, by
considering one party an emanation of the state. (If you find a party working for the
govt it is a vertical effect.
- The second is known as indirect, incidental effect (less direct).
Case: Foster v British Gas 1990:
Farrell Test:
+ Indirect effect:
- this is when a authority is private helps get around it when its not a MS. Created that
national courts had to comply to EU law as far as possible: if you have no people to
have obligation to be forces on you have no individuals with more rights.
- Interpret and apply the legislation adopted for the implementation of the directive in
conformity with the requirements of community law.
- First place to apply IE.
Case: Marleasing 1990:
- It is required to do so, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of
the directive.
+ Incidental Effect:
- Individuals can claim rights under the directive and maybe able to influence the case
outcome.
- Does not create new rights or obligations for the parties involved.
- Gets around not having horizontal DE of directives.
- Confirmed in CIA security and unilever Italia.
Pros: Cons:
+ Horizontal effect:
- In the event of any conflict with EU law/ supremacy states that EU law must prevail.
- This is irrespective of whether it is conflicting with fundamental rights or
constitutional principles of the national MS.
- ‘cannot be affected by allegations that it runs counter to either fundamental rights’.
- A French beef importer had to pay a fee for inspection when it imported its beef into
Italy.
- Argued that Italian law was false before EU law came into force so it prevailed.
- Under principle of supremacy, this was irrelevant and EU law remained supreme.
- ‘whether prior to subsequent to the community rule’.
- DE would not be effective without the principle be effective without the principle of
supremacy.
- The principle of supremacy could not exist without the doctrine of DE.
- If EU law is to be supreme over national law and be enforced, then EU law needs to
be directly effective first.
- Withdrawing from the EU was introduced by the Lisbon treaty in article 50 TEU.
- Withdrawal was always possible in international law and it has yet to happen.
- Britain is the first MS to trigger article 50 TEU for withdrawal.
- Political meaning of including withdrawal in the Lisbon treaty was symbolic.
+ Article 50:
+ Steps of withdrawal:
- Notification by existing MS
- Adoption of negotiating guidelines
+ What is to be negotiated?
- Article 50 (3) TEU states that once notified the process should be two years.
- It also states that should they need more time you can agree to this unanimously.
- The UK is currently struggling and it is highly likely that they will need more than 2
years but if even one member state disagrees then they could be left existing
without a deal.