Eu - Francovich: Structure

14 Questions | Total Attempts: 50

SettingsSettingsSettings
Please wait...
Structure Quizzes & Trivia

Questions and Answers
  • 1. 
    • A. 

      Before anything else

    • B. 

      After Direct Applicability, DE and IDE

    • C. 

      As long as Direct Applicability has been discussed

    • D. 

      Don't bother, it's too difficult!

  • 2. 
    In Francovich claims, we must start with THRESHOLD ISSUES: One has already been discussed; namely Direct Applicability. There must also be a BREACH OF EU LAW - and the national court can determine this breach... As per which case?
    • A. 

      Brasserie

    • B. 

      Bonifaci

    • C. 

      Banks

    • D. 

      Francovich

  • 3. 
    There must be actual loss suffered for a Francovich claim to fulfill the threshold issues and there is a duty to mitigate losses. This case suggests that this is a residual remedy, and can only be used once Direct Effect and Indirect Effect have been argued. (note: this only suggests that it is residual, it may be necessary to make an Art 267 reference on the issue)
    • A. 

      Francovich

    • B. 

      Bonifaci

    • C. 

      Brasserie

    • D. 

      Hedley Lomas

  • 4. 
    We would prefer to sue the body we bring the claim for DE/IDE against, 2 reasons, it's quicker and cheaper than dragging out two separate claims; also less risky if the Francovich remedy fails. There are two approaches to determining the defendant; a) a narrow Vertical Effect approach: only central government b) the wide Vertical Effect approach, this case applied vertical effect to include "Public Law Bodies"
    • A. 

      Brasserie

    • B. 

      Banks

    • C. 

      Impact

    • D. 

      Haim

  • 5. 
    The attorney general in this case gave his very influencial yet non binding opinion that Francovich claims should also have Horizontal Effect; thus creating general liability to follow EU law.
    • A. 

      Banks

    • B. 

      Manfredi

    • C. 

      Francovich

    • D. 

      Brasserie

  • 6. 
    Having established the Threshold Issues, we move onto the CONDITIONS laid out in which case?
    • A. 

      Brasserie

    • B. 

      Hedley Lomas

    • C. 

      Rechberger

    • D. 

      Stockholm Lindopark

  • 7. 
    BRASSERIE clealy states that the provision in question must give RIGHTS to the citizen.
    • A. 

      True

    • B. 

      False

  • 8. 
    There must be a CAUSAL LINK in accordance with the causation rules laid out in...
    • A. 

      Austria

    • B. 

      Poland

    • C. 

      The National State of the case

    • D. 

      The EU Caselaw

  • 9. 
    • A. 

      Stupidly Serious Breach

    • B. 

      Some Sort of Breach

    • C. 

      Sufficiently Serious Breach

    • D. 

      Should really Stop Breaching!

  • 10. 
    If the provision gives the state or the body wide discretion as to how they apply it, then misapplication must be fault based and be a MGB under Brasserie Para 56 or Dillenkofer. What is MGB? It's worth noting, the Court should make an Art 267 reference if it's unsure
    • A. 

      Manifest and Grave Breach

    • B. 

      Massively Giant Breach

    • C. 

      Majorly Grave Breach

    • D. 

      Manifest and Giant Breach

  • 11. 
    If the provisions are give NO DISCRETION in their application, then ANY BREACH is sufficient, even if nobody is at fault. (Little lambs case)
    • A. 

      Dillenkofer

    • B. 

      Hedley Lomas

    • C. 

      Francovich II

    • D. 

      Robins

  • 12. 
    If the provisions are seen to be UNCLEAR then the body or state has WIDE DISCRETION (and we must prove a Manifest and Grave Breach)
    • A. 

      Hedley Lomas; Bergaderm; Peter Paul

    • B. 

      Gervais Larsy; Stockholm Lindopark

    • C. 

      Robins; ex parte BT; Denkavit

    • D. 

      Francovich II; Gervais Larsy

  • 13. 
    If the provisions are CLEAR then the body or state has NO DISCRETION, therefore any breach is sufficient to bring a Francovich claim
    • A. 

      Gervais Larsy; Stockholm Lindopark

    • B. 

      Ex parte BT; Robins

    • C. 

      Brasserie; Francovich II

    • D. 

      Dillenkofer; Denkavit

  • 14. 
    In this case, the Francovich claim was given Horizontal Effect, but only in terms of competition law, an Article 267 reference would be needed to clarify if Francovich claims were available horizontally in all cases... (Should be just after Q 5 - sorry!)
    • A. 

      Courage

    • B. 

      Brasserie

    • C. 

      Banks

    • D. 

      Rechberger