Eu In The National Legal Systems

The case of Ratti provides that the deadline must have expired otherwise Member States are denied their discretion to implement.

In the case of Francovich, a private party can sue a Member State for its failure to implement a directive if the following criteria are satisfied: the directive does give rights to individuals, rights are identifiable in the directive, and there is a direct causal link between the Member State's failure to implement and the damage.

Directives are only vertically directly effective where an individual seeks to rely on it against a member state. As evidenced in Pretore de Salo MS cannot rely on a directive against an individual.

The threshold criteria required for direct effect (Van Gend en Loos) are that the measure must be clear and precise, unconditional with no room for further implementation, and the deadline for implementation must have expired. These criteria ensure that the measure has a direct and immediate effect on individuals and can be invoked in national courts without the need for further action or implementation.

Dorsch Consult: concerned a directive requiring Member States to establish a tribunal to hear public service disputes. ECJ held no direct effect as MS have discretion to choose what court or tribunal hears a dispute.

Art.249 of the European Union Treaty provides that directives are binding as to the result to be achieved, but leave the choice of form and methods to the Member States. This means that Member States are required to achieve the objectives set out in the directive, but they have flexibility in deciding how to implement it into their national laws. Directives are binding to those addressed, which means that Member States are obliged to transpose the directive into their national legislation and ensure its implementation. However, directives do not have direct effect on individuals and cannot be invoked directly in national courts.

Member States have the authority to choose the form and methods in which directives are implemented. This means that each individual country within the European Union, for example, has the flexibility to determine how they will incorporate and enforce directives into their national laws and regulations. This allows Member States to adapt the directives to their specific legal systems and administrative structures, ensuring effective implementation and compliance within their respective jurisdictions.

Direct effect is where a provision is clear and precise, unconditional and its deadline has expired thus can be enforced by an individual against a member state. Supremacy provides that Community law is takes precedence over national law thus it is Community law that applies in a conflict. These two doctrines allow for Community law to be directly enforceable!

Inter-environment v Wallonie: During implementation there is a duty of loyal co-operation on Member States to refrain from adopting measures that are liable to seriously compromise the result prescribed (a negative duty)

Adeneler: AG Kokott argued that there should be a duty of consistent interpretation regards existing domestic legislation nonetheless there is no positive duty on Member States.

The correct answer is "Horizontally and vertically effective." This means that the treaty provisions are applicable and enforceable both between the parties to the treaty (horizontally) and within the domestic legal systems of the parties (vertically). In other words, the provisions have a direct effect on the relationships between the treaty parties and can also be implemented and upheld within their respective countries. This ensures that the treaty provisions have a broad scope of application and can be effectively enforced at both international and domestic levels.

not-available-via-ai

The correct answer is "All of the above". The ECJ developed various means to alleviate the hardship caused by the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives. One such means is the doctrine of 'emanation of the state', which extends the application of directives to entities that are not strictly part of the state but are closely linked to it. The duty of consistent interpretation requires national courts to interpret national law in a manner consistent with the objectives of the directive. Additionally, where general principles of community law are concerned, national courts are obliged to interpret national law in light of those principles. Therefore, all of these means contribute to alleviating the hardship caused by the lack of horizontal direct effect of directives.

Mangold is being criticized by Wyatt and Dashwood for exacerbating the existing lack of consistency and confusion in the field of community law by introducing an additional layer of arbitrariness.