Direct Effect continued
Requirements Sufficiently Positive Direct effect,
Unconditional
for Direct Effect clear & Precise. Obligations against whom?
Also in Cooperativa Provision must be unconditional. VGDL was a negative obligation
VGDL = Article 12 EEC can have
AgricolaZootecnica case (no custom duty raises) clear
Not all provisions of an EU treaty direct effect agaisnt the Dutch
from this that a provision is
have direct effect. Tax and customs office. So it can
capable of having a direct effect
have effect against the state
if framed in negative terms.
Cooperativa Agricola Zootenica
provided more concrete ruling:
Means that it must set out the
obligation in unequivocal terms.
(this means it must be Alfons Lutticke GmBH v
sufficiently clear - not absolutely Hauptzollamt saarlouis (case Provisions that have direct effect
They must meet certain clear) 57/65) ECLI:EU:C:1966:34 agaisnt the state are said to have
1) provision must not be qualified
requirements for them to do so.
by any condition COJ held that article 95 EEC VERTICAL DIRECT EFFECT
could have a direct effect.
In Van Duyn v Home Office
(case 41/47)
2) provision must also not be
ECLI:EU:C:1974:133 Defrenne v SABENA (No2) case
subject, in its implementation or
Twp basic principles known as COJ held that the direct effect 43/75) ECLI:EU:C:1976:56
effects, to the taking of any
the Van Gend de Loos criteria will not be precluded by the fact Alfons case provision contained
measure by community concerning equal pay held that
1) Provision must be Sufficiently that the provisions raised institutions or member states. a positive obligation on article 119 EEC was capable of
clear & precise questions that can be resolved Member states to remove having direct effect againt
(so it will fail this requirement if descriminatory tax measures by
2) It must also be unconditional by a court of law. private parties (companies &
it has to be implemented by the a certain deadline.
EU or by the member states) individuals
Mere fact that provision
The mere fact that a provision
contains positive obligation will
needs to be interpreted will not
not prevent it from being able
prevent it from having a direct
to have direct effect
effect so long as the
interpretation can be resolved Provisions which have direct
Aim of this requirement is effect against private parties are
by the court of law from the
ensure that the legal right in said to have
provision itself.
question is available
immediately. right wont be HORIZONTAL DIRECT EFFECT
immediately available if a
condition prevents it from being
so, or or if ot has to be
implemented by the EU or
member states first.
Therefore it won't have a direct
effect.
Requirements Sufficiently Positive Direct effect,
Unconditional
for Direct Effect clear & Precise. Obligations against whom?
Also in Cooperativa Provision must be unconditional. VGDL was a negative obligation
VGDL = Article 12 EEC can have
AgricolaZootecnica case (no custom duty raises) clear
Not all provisions of an EU treaty direct effect agaisnt the Dutch
from this that a provision is
have direct effect. Tax and customs office. So it can
capable of having a direct effect
have effect against the state
if framed in negative terms.
Cooperativa Agricola Zootenica
provided more concrete ruling:
Means that it must set out the
obligation in unequivocal terms.
(this means it must be Alfons Lutticke GmBH v
sufficiently clear - not absolutely Hauptzollamt saarlouis (case Provisions that have direct effect
They must meet certain clear) 57/65) ECLI:EU:C:1966:34 agaisnt the state are said to have
1) provision must not be qualified
requirements for them to do so.
by any condition COJ held that article 95 EEC VERTICAL DIRECT EFFECT
could have a direct effect.
In Van Duyn v Home Office
(case 41/47)
2) provision must also not be
ECLI:EU:C:1974:133 Defrenne v SABENA (No2) case
subject, in its implementation or
Twp basic principles known as COJ held that the direct effect 43/75) ECLI:EU:C:1976:56
effects, to the taking of any
the Van Gend de Loos criteria will not be precluded by the fact Alfons case provision contained
measure by community concerning equal pay held that
1) Provision must be Sufficiently that the provisions raised institutions or member states. a positive obligation on article 119 EEC was capable of
clear & precise questions that can be resolved Member states to remove having direct effect againt
(so it will fail this requirement if descriminatory tax measures by
2) It must also be unconditional by a court of law. private parties (companies &
it has to be implemented by the a certain deadline.
EU or by the member states) individuals
Mere fact that provision
The mere fact that a provision
contains positive obligation will
needs to be interpreted will not
not prevent it from being able
prevent it from having a direct
to have direct effect
effect so long as the
interpretation can be resolved Provisions which have direct
Aim of this requirement is effect against private parties are
by the court of law from the
ensure that the legal right in said to have
provision itself.
question is available
immediately. right wont be HORIZONTAL DIRECT EFFECT
immediately available if a
condition prevents it from being
so, or or if ot has to be
implemented by the EU or
member states first.
Therefore it won't have a direct
effect.
