The Principle of State Liability
Case C-334/92 Teodoro Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garantia Salarial
In the event that, even when interpreted in the light of that directive,
national law does not enable higher management staff to obtain the
benefit of the guarantees for which it provides, such staff are entitled to request
the state concerned to make good the loss and damage sustained as
a result of the failure to implement the directive in their respect.
Interconnection of the principles of indirect effect and state liability.
Joined Cases C-6/90 Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and Others v Italian Republic
Francovich (& others) was owed wages by his employer who had become insolvent.
Italian law provided no remedy in these circumstances.
Directive 80/987/EEC required each Member State to set up a scheme under which
employees of insolvent companies would receive at least some of their outstanding
wages.
The Italian government had failed to transpose the rights in the Directive into
national law as it was legally obliged to do.
The applicants sought to rely on this Directive to claim compensation from the Italian
state.
Italian court made a reference to the Court of Justice, under Article 267 TFEU.
Court of Justice held that the relevant provisions were insufficiently clear to be
directly effective.
The court did not consider the possibility of indirect effect in Francovich.
The Directive at issue in Francovich could not have indirect effect on the facts
of this particular case because there was no relevant Italian legislation in
accordance with which it could be construed.
The EU had intended employees to have right under the directive, yet
neither of the doctrines that the court had previously developed to
make rights effective (direct effect and indirect effect) were of
assistance here.
The court’s response was to develop an alternative solution to
make those rights effective.
The court ruled that a member state that breached its obligation to
transpose a directive by the deadline for its transposition could be
held liable in damages to an individual who had suffered loss as a
result.
Why state liability?
Para 33 – ‘The full effectiveness of Community rules would be
impaired and the protection of the rights which they grant would be
weakened if individuals were unable to obtain reparation when their
rights are infringed by a breach of Community law for which a
Member State can be held responsible’.
Para 35 – ‘It follows that the principle whereby a state must be liable
Case C-334/92 Teodoro Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garantia Salarial
In the event that, even when interpreted in the light of that directive,
national law does not enable higher management staff to obtain the
benefit of the guarantees for which it provides, such staff are entitled to request
the state concerned to make good the loss and damage sustained as
a result of the failure to implement the directive in their respect.
Interconnection of the principles of indirect effect and state liability.
Joined Cases C-6/90 Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and Others v Italian Republic
Francovich (& others) was owed wages by his employer who had become insolvent.
Italian law provided no remedy in these circumstances.
Directive 80/987/EEC required each Member State to set up a scheme under which
employees of insolvent companies would receive at least some of their outstanding
wages.
The Italian government had failed to transpose the rights in the Directive into
national law as it was legally obliged to do.
The applicants sought to rely on this Directive to claim compensation from the Italian
state.
Italian court made a reference to the Court of Justice, under Article 267 TFEU.
Court of Justice held that the relevant provisions were insufficiently clear to be
directly effective.
The court did not consider the possibility of indirect effect in Francovich.
The Directive at issue in Francovich could not have indirect effect on the facts
of this particular case because there was no relevant Italian legislation in
accordance with which it could be construed.
The EU had intended employees to have right under the directive, yet
neither of the doctrines that the court had previously developed to
make rights effective (direct effect and indirect effect) were of
assistance here.
The court’s response was to develop an alternative solution to
make those rights effective.
The court ruled that a member state that breached its obligation to
transpose a directive by the deadline for its transposition could be
held liable in damages to an individual who had suffered loss as a
result.
Why state liability?
Para 33 – ‘The full effectiveness of Community rules would be
impaired and the protection of the rights which they grant would be
weakened if individuals were unable to obtain reparation when their
rights are infringed by a breach of Community law for which a
Member State can be held responsible’.
Para 35 – ‘It follows that the principle whereby a state must be liable
