08EU Law - Direct Effect

The ability of EU law to directly impact individuals and influence national legal orders.

A provision of EU law that can be directly invoked by individuals before national courts.

The principle that EU law prevails over conflicting national laws when both are directly applicable.

A legal provision requiring national judges to apply EU law even if it conflicts with national law.

A question submitted by a national court to the ECJ (European Court of Justice) seeking clarification on the interpretation or validity of EU law.

The capacity of EU law to be applied by all national authorities, not just judges, including public administrations.

The European Court of Justice is the highest court in the EU legal system. It interprets EU law and ensures its consistent application across all member states.

A process where national courts are obliged to apply EU law even if it conflicts with national law. It ensures the supremacy of EU law within the EU member states.

A regulation directly applies in all member states without any need for national implementation. It is immediately enforceable by individuals against a public body or another individual.

Regulations can be enforced in legal disputes between private individuals or companies.

Decisions of the EU institutions can have direct effect, meaning individuals can rely on them in court.

Directives are not directly applicable and require transposition by member states into national law. Therefore, they cannot have direct effect until they are incorporated into national law.

The infringement procedure is a process used when member states fail to properly transpose a directive. It involves the EU Commission taking legal action against the member state.

The right to an effective judicial remedy and to an impartial judge, as stated in Article 47 of the Charter, has direct vertical effect. This allows individuals to enforce this right against the state.

Article 21 of the Charter, which prohibits discrimination, can have direct horizontal effect. This means individuals can enforce it against other individuals or private companies.

A national court must interpret national law in a way that is consistent with EU law, including the Charter, even when it involves disputes between individuals. If national law is incompatible, it can be disapplied.

Even if the state hasn't changed its laws, private employers must still comply with the EU principle of non-discrimination, as stated in Article 21 of the Charter. This ensures equal treatment for all workers.

Article 31(2) of the Charter, which guarantees fair working conditions, has direct horizontal effect. This means workers can enforce this right against their employers.

If national law doesn't comply with EU laws on fair working conditions, the court can disapply that national law. This ensures workers receive their earned annual leave and related payments.

Employers must prove they made all necessary efforts to allow their workers to take their annual leave. Failure to do so could result in the employer directly paying for the leave not taken.

The European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees basic rights and freedoms for all individuals within the EU, applies to private disputes, not just disputes between individuals and the state.

Directives can have a direct effect in legal disputes between individuals and the state, but not between individuals themselves. This applies when a directive's deadline for implementation has passed and the member state has failed to meet its obligation.

The purpose of vertical direct effect is to protect individuals from the consequences of a member state's failure to implement a directive correctly or on time. This encourages member states to fulfill their obligations under EU law.

Before the deadline for transposition of a directive, it does not have direct effect. It only imposes a "standstill obligation" on Member States, meaning they cannot take measures that conflict with the directive.

For a directive to have direct effect, the party invoking it must be an individual, and the other party must be a Member State (or its agencies, institutions, etc.)

The provision of the directive that is being relied upon must be clear, precise, and unconditional. It must be designed to confer rights on individuals.

Directives cannot be used in a way that would create obligations for an individual to another individual. This is because the directive focuses on the relationship between the individual and the state.

A directive cannot be used in reverse against an individual by a member state. This is because the intent is to protect individuals from the state, not the other way around.

The directive must have been correctly transposed into national law by the member state. If the member state failed to do so, the individual can use the directive against the state to enforce their rights.

Directives only have direct effects on states, not individuals in private disputes. This means a directive cannot be directly enforced against a private company, while a public entity must follow it even if it hasn't been transposed into national law.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has recognized the discrimination caused by directives only having vertical direct effect. They've developed ways to address this issue, even though directives cannot directly apply to private relationships.

The EU law concept of 'state' is very broad, encompassing not only public bodies, but also actions of private entities carrying out public functions (like providing essential services). This broad definition allows for more potential horizontal applications of EU law.

Directives can have a direct effect on public entities even if they haven't been translated into national law. A public employer must abide by a relevant directive, even if the national law doesn't reflect it.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has consistently held that directives do not have direct horizontal effect. This means that they cannot be directly enforced between private individuals or companies.

The ECJ's interpretation of the 'State' has been broadened to include entities like territorial authorities, public order maintainers, health service providers, and companies with state-owned shares. This means individuals can rely on directives in more situations to challenge these entities.

Some directives express general principles of EU law, like nondiscrimination. These principles can have direct horizontal effect, even if the directive itself hasn't been transposed into national law.

When a directive expresses a general principle, national courts must directly apply that principle, even if the directive hasn't been transposed into national law. This can lead to conflicting national laws being disapplied.

Even in private disputes, general principles expressed in directives can become relevant. This is because general principles are flexible and can be applied in various contexts, even beyond the initial scope of the directive.

The ECJ's expansion of the 'State' concept for directives raises the question of how it relates to the original purpose of direct effect, which was to sanction Member States for non-compliance.

If a Member State hasn't transposed a directive, public enterprises (state-owned companies) still have to comply with that directive. The directive's content can directly affect their actions.

The Mangold case and the Kücükdeveci case are examples of how the ECJ determined that directives can have direct horizontal effect by expressing general principles of EU law. This created a new avenue for individuals to enforce their rights in private disputes.

Directives are not directly applicable and require transposition into national law. However, if they express a general principle, they can have direct horizontal effect, meaning private individuals can use them to enforce their rights in court.