Eu - Direct Effect: Structure

Approved & Edited by ProProfs Editorial Team
The editorial team at ProProfs Quizzes consists of a select group of subject experts, trivia writers, and quiz masters who have authored over 10,000 quizzes taken by more than 100 million users. This team includes our in-house seasoned quiz moderators and subject matter experts. Our editorial experts, spread across the world, are rigorously trained using our comprehensive guidelines to ensure that you receive the highest quality quizzes.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Chriscullen
C
Chriscullen
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 12 | Total Attempts: 2,398
Questions: 16 | Attempts: 128

SettingsSettingsSettings
Structure Quizzes & Trivia

Using Shaun's mind-maps! Here is my quiz on Direct Effect.
It will be of more benefit to you if you have read the Shazia case before doing this, and have it in front of you. . .


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 

    When should Direct Effect be considered in the exam?

    • A.

      First before anything else...

    • B.

      Only once Direct Applicability has been discussed

    • C.

      After Indirect Effect and Francovich

    • D.

      Before Alternatives to Litigation

    Correct Answer
    B. Only once Direct Applicability has been discussed
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 2. 

    Simmenthal II establishes...

    • A.

      The criteria for the provisions to be directly effective

    • B.

      The consequences of a National Court not making an Art 267 reference

    • C.

      Provisions with Direct effect give freestanding rights

    • D.

      In EU matters the courts needn't promote the doctrine of judicial precedence

    Correct Answer
    C. Provisions with Direct effect give freestanding rights
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 3. 

    Articles of a directive are capable of having direct effect. According to...?

    • A.

      Van Gend en Loos

    • B.

      Doughty

    • C.

      Rheinmuhlen

    • D.

      Van Duyn

    Correct Answer
    D. Van Duyn
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    The cumulative criteria must be satisfied for the articles to have direct effect and give freestanding rights. Van Gend en Loos sets out this criteria, choose the relevant parts of this criteria.

    • A.

      Capable of producing rights for public authorities

    • B.

      Capable of producing rights for individuals

    • C.

      Sufficiently clear and precise

    • D.

      National law must have been adopted relating to the provisions

    • E.

      Unconditional

    • F.

      Conditional

    Correct Answer(s)
    B. Capable of producing rights for individuals
    C. Sufficiently clear and precise
    E. Unconditional
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    The Van Gend en Loos criteria is a question of interpretation of EU law... So the national court will probably have to make an Article 267 reference to ensure the uniformity of interpretation across all the member states; and with the EU operating 23 different official languages it could translate differently across the countries. A national court may not need to make a reference if the __________ exceptions apply... Missing word..?

    • A.

      CILFIT

    • B.

      Simmenthal II

    • C.

      Wallonie

    • D.

      Manfredi

    Correct Answer
    A. CILFIT
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    What are the CILFIT exceptions (para 16 - 21)?

    • A.

      If claim is against an Emanations of the State

    • B.

      If the directive is directly applicable

    • C.

      CJEU already ruled on the matter; or Acte Clair

    • D.

      If the issue is under competition law

    Correct Answer
    C. CJEU already ruled on the matter; or Acte Clair
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 7. 

    Here we should mention the consequences on the court if the fail to make the Article 267 reference...

    • A.

      This can open the floodgates to Francovich claims

    • B.

      Judges have protection from suit, so nothing can happen

    • C.

      The claimant will automatically win the claim if the CJEU hear about it

    • D.

      The claimant can assume horizontal direct effect as well as vertical

    Correct Answer
    A. This can open the floodgates to Francovich claims
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 8. 

    So failing to make an article 267 reference can open the floodgates to Francovich claims... According to which case?

    • A.

      Francovich I

    • B.

      Francovich II

    • C.

      Foster

    • D.

      Kóbler

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

    Rate this question:

  • 9. 

    Direct Effect only applies vertically, which two cases tell us this?

    • A.

      Foster; Rheinmuhlen

    • B.

      Foster; Kampelmann

    • C.

      Marshall No 1; Facini Dori

    • D.

      Marshall No 1; Foster

    Correct Answer
    C. Marshall No 1; Facini Dori
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    The case study may include a decision by the UK Supreme Court or a court higher than the court of first instance for the claim whose decision is contrary to the vertical direct effect rule - I.E. stating that the company in question is not anything to do with the state so can't be covered by direct effect... Does this mean the Direct Effect claim ends here?

    • A.

      Yes

    • B.

      No

    Correct Answer
    B. No
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 11. 

    So the supremacy principle means that the national court must ignore the state decision and make an article 267 reference if necessary to clarify whether the company is an Emanation of the State and there is vertical direct effect or not... According to which case?

    • A.

      Rheinmuhlen

    • B.

      Foster

    • C.

      Kampelmann

    • D.

      Vassallo

    Correct Answer
    A. Rheinmuhlen
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 12. 

    This is probably a good opportunity for you to write an answer based on the Shazia case study using the structure above... Really simple, just look use and pad it out into a paragraph... It isn't marked because I couldn't possibly mark it so won't effect your score on the quiz... But probably good practice for the exam!

  • 13. 

    The company the claim is against must be an "Emanation of the State." There is a 2 part alternative test to defining whether a company is an Emanation of the State or not... Which of the below are the three criteria?

    • A.

      The body is run mainly for commercial reasons; OR is a school

    • B.

      The body is under State Control; OR has Special Powers

    • C.

      The body uses venture capitalists for funding; OR provides services of particular public interest

    • D.

      The body is a bank; OR a school

    Correct Answer
    B. The body is under State Control; OR has Special Powers
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

  • 14. 

    FOSTER v BRITISH GAS (PARA 18) defines an Emanation of the State as a body either; a) under a sufficient degree of state control; OR b) which has special powers. Which of the following CJEU CASES confirm this to be the definition?

    • A.

      Kampelmann; Marrosu and Vasallo

    • B.

      Rheinmuhlen; Faccini Dori and Marshall no 1

    • C.

      Van Gend en Loos; Francovich and Marleasing

    • D.

      Foster; NUT and Griffin

    Correct Answer
    A. Kampelmann; Marrosu and Vasallo
  • 15. 

    Unfortunately, the UK Courts see (Para 20) of FOSTER v BRITISH GAS as the definition of an emanation of the state; when actually - we know this is the CJEU applying British Gas to the definition of an emanation of the state. Which 2 of these cases have used the WRONG (3 stage cumulative) test?

    • A.

      Kempelmann (House of Lords)

    • B.

      Doughty (Court of Appeal)

    • C.

      Griffin (High Court)

    • D.

      Duke (House of Lords)

    Correct Answer(s)
    B. Doughty (Court of Appeal)
    C. Griffin (High Court)
    Explanation
    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).

    Rate this question:

  • 16. 

    The courts can still come to the correct conclusion by using the incorrect 3 stage test, as was the case in Griffin. But the courts have taken a more relaxed approach, stipulating that if the body carries out a Traditional State Function (like a school........) then only two of the three criteria need be satisfied. If it is for commercial activities however, it must still fulfil the three part cumulative test. According to which case?

    • A.

      NUT

    • B.

      Doughty

    • C.

      Marleasing

    • D.

      Litster

    Correct Answer
    A. NUT
    Explanation
    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.

    Rate this question:

Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.