Eu - Direct Effect: Structure

The correct answer is "The body is under State Control; OR has Special Powers." This means that for a company to be considered an "Emanation of the State," it must either be under the control of the state or possess special powers granted by the state. This criteria helps to determine whether the company operates as an extension of the state and is subject to the same legal obligations and responsibilities.

The answer is "No" because even if the decision by the UK Supreme Court or a higher court states that the company in question is not covered by direct effect, it does not necessarily mean that the direct effect claim ends there. The vertical direct effect rule may still be applicable in certain circumstances, depending on the specific facts and legal arguments presented in the case. Therefore, the direct effect claim may continue to be pursued despite the court's decision.

Direct Effect should be considered in the exam only after Direct Applicability has been discussed. Direct Applicability refers to the ability of EU law to automatically become part of a member state's legal system without the need for any further action. Once Direct Applicability has been addressed, Direct Effect can be examined, which refers to the ability of individuals to rely on EU law in national courts and seek remedies for violations of their rights. Therefore, it is important to understand Direct Applicability before discussing Direct Effect.

The CILFIT exceptions refer to situations where a national court may not be required to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling. One of these exceptions is when the CJEU has already ruled on the matter in question. This means that if the CJEU has previously provided a clear and definitive interpretation of the relevant EU law, the national court can rely on that ruling without needing to refer the question to the CJEU again. Another exception is when the issue falls under competition law. In such cases, the national court may have the competence to apply EU competition law without needing to refer the question to the CJEU.

The correct answer is "This can open the floodgates to Francovich claims." This means that if the court fails to make the Article 267 reference, it can lead to an increase in Francovich claims. Francovich claims refer to the right of individuals to seek compensation from a member state for damages caused by a failure to implement EU law. Therefore, if the court does not make the reference, it may result in more individuals seeking compensation for the violation of their rights under EU law.

The national court may not need to make a reference if the CILFIT exceptions apply. The CILFIT case established that a national court is not required to make a reference to the European Court of Justice if the interpretation of EU law is clear and does not leave any room for doubt. Therefore, if the national court can interpret the EU law without any ambiguity or uncertainty, it does not need to seek clarification from the European Court of Justice.

The correct answer is Marshall No 1; Facini Dori. These two cases demonstrate the principle of Direct Effect applying vertically. Direct Effect refers to the ability of individuals to rely on European Union law before national courts and seek remedies for violations of their rights. In the case of Marshall No 1, the European Court of Justice held that individuals could rely on EU law against a state-owned enterprise. Similarly, in the case of Facini Dori, the court ruled that individuals could rely on EU law against a private company. Both cases establish the vertical application of Direct Effect.

Van Duyn is the correct answer because the case of Van Duyn v Home Office established that articles of a directive can have direct effect. In this case, the European Court of Justice ruled that individuals can rely on the provisions of a directive before national courts, even if the directive has not been implemented into national law. This means that individuals can directly enforce their rights under a directive, without the need for national legislation to give effect to the directive.

The correct answer is NUT because it supports the statement that the courts have taken a more relaxed approach when it comes to bodies carrying out Traditional State Functions. The case of NUT likely provides a precedent or legal ruling that supports this approach and states that only two of the three criteria need to be satisfied in such cases.

Failing to make an article 267 reference can open the floodgates to Francovich claims. This refers to the case of Kóbler.

The question asks which two cases have used the wrong (3 stage cumulative) test. The correct answer is Doughty (Court of Appeal) and Griffin (High Court).

The relevant parts of the criteria from Van Gend en Loos are that the articles must be capable of producing rights for individuals, sufficiently clear and precise, and unconditional. This means that the articles must have the potential to grant rights to individuals, be clear and specific in their language, and not be subject to any conditions or limitations. These criteria ensure that the articles have direct effect and can provide freestanding rights to individuals.

Provisions with direct effect give freestanding rights means that these provisions can be invoked and relied upon by individuals in national courts, without the need for any further national legislation or implementing measures. This principle was established in the Simmenthal II case. It ensures that individuals can directly benefit from EU law and have their rights protected, even if the national authorities have not properly implemented or applied the EU law. This allows for the effective enforcement of EU law and ensures that individuals have access to justice at the national level.

The correct answer is Rheinmuhlen. The explanation for this answer is that the principle of supremacy requires national courts to disregard any conflicting state decisions and refer any necessary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for clarification. This principle was established in the Rheinmuhlen case, where the CJEU ruled that national courts must make a reference to the CJEU if there is doubt about the interpretation of EU law, particularly in cases involving whether a company is an emanation of the state and if there is vertical direct effect.

not-available-via-ai