Indirect Effect
-Indirect effect: Imposes a duty on national courts to interpret national law in light of the
wording and purpose of the Directive in order to achieve the Directives aims. That is, if direct
effect of the Directives is not applicable, you can make the national be interpreted in light of
the Directive.
Van Colson [1983]: This case involved two female social workers who were attempting to
claim rights under the Equal Treatment Directive. They could not claim rights directly under
the Directive, however the ECJ: decided that the Directive could still be useful through what
is now indirect effect.
Held (Legal Principle): ECJ developed the Van Colson Principle (indirect effect): That as
national courts are part of the state, they are under obligation to interpret national law in line
with EU law. This can mean that an individual can enforce a law from the EU against another
individual in national courts, thereby providing horizontal effect to Directives
Conditions for the Application of Indirect Effect
*-Indirect effect cannot be used in every case. There are limitations on its applicability that
must be followed:
a)Indirect Effect and Criminal Liability
Public Prosecutor v Kolpinghuis [1986]: Concerned the prosecution of a Dutch firm by a MS
for stocking adulterated mineral water that was in breach of an EU Directive. The
implementation period had expired and the Netherlands should have implemented the
Directive but failed to do so.
Held (Legal Principle): The principles of indirect effect could not be applied by a MS to
support a retroactive prosecution. Therefore, indirect effect: Cannot be used to impose new
criminal liabilities or sanctions on individuals.
b)Indirect Effect and Directive Time Limits
Adeneler [2004]: Concerned the Fixed-term Work Directive whose deadline for
implementation was July 10th, 2002. Adeneler was employed on a fixed term contract in
2001, before implementation of the Directive, and wanted Greek law to be interpreted in
conformity with the Directive.
Held (Legal Principle): The duty to interpret national law in conformity with a Directive
exists only once the period for its implementation has expired. However:
a) During the implementation period, the national courts must avoid interpretations of
national that would seriously compromise the objectives of the Directive.
b) If a state enforces EU law incorrectly it can be liable for damages.
c)Horizontal Indirect Effect
*-Unlike direct effect, indirect effect can be horizontal.
Marleasing [1989]: Case concerned a Directive that had not been implemented in Spain, but
which would have determined the outcome of the case. The Spanish courts wanted to know
whether the Directive could nevertheless be directly upheld against an individual by another
individual. That is, the Directive provides rights that must be applied in national court, but if
-Indirect effect: Imposes a duty on national courts to interpret national law in light of the
wording and purpose of the Directive in order to achieve the Directives aims. That is, if direct
effect of the Directives is not applicable, you can make the national be interpreted in light of
the Directive.
Van Colson [1983]: This case involved two female social workers who were attempting to
claim rights under the Equal Treatment Directive. They could not claim rights directly under
the Directive, however the ECJ: decided that the Directive could still be useful through what
is now indirect effect.
Held (Legal Principle): ECJ developed the Van Colson Principle (indirect effect): That as
national courts are part of the state, they are under obligation to interpret national law in line
with EU law. This can mean that an individual can enforce a law from the EU against another
individual in national courts, thereby providing horizontal effect to Directives
Conditions for the Application of Indirect Effect
*-Indirect effect cannot be used in every case. There are limitations on its applicability that
must be followed:
a)Indirect Effect and Criminal Liability
Public Prosecutor v Kolpinghuis [1986]: Concerned the prosecution of a Dutch firm by a MS
for stocking adulterated mineral water that was in breach of an EU Directive. The
implementation period had expired and the Netherlands should have implemented the
Directive but failed to do so.
Held (Legal Principle): The principles of indirect effect could not be applied by a MS to
support a retroactive prosecution. Therefore, indirect effect: Cannot be used to impose new
criminal liabilities or sanctions on individuals.
b)Indirect Effect and Directive Time Limits
Adeneler [2004]: Concerned the Fixed-term Work Directive whose deadline for
implementation was July 10th, 2002. Adeneler was employed on a fixed term contract in
2001, before implementation of the Directive, and wanted Greek law to be interpreted in
conformity with the Directive.
Held (Legal Principle): The duty to interpret national law in conformity with a Directive
exists only once the period for its implementation has expired. However:
a) During the implementation period, the national courts must avoid interpretations of
national that would seriously compromise the objectives of the Directive.
b) If a state enforces EU law incorrectly it can be liable for damages.
c)Horizontal Indirect Effect
*-Unlike direct effect, indirect effect can be horizontal.
Marleasing [1989]: Case concerned a Directive that had not been implemented in Spain, but
which would have determined the outcome of the case. The Spanish courts wanted to know
whether the Directive could nevertheless be directly upheld against an individual by another
individual. That is, the Directive provides rights that must be applied in national court, but if
