When should Indirect Effect (Consistent Interpretation) be considered in the exam?

After Direct Effect and Direct Applicability

Before Alternatives to Litigation

EU - Indirect Effect: Structure | Attempts: 131

2.

What are the advantages of Indirect Effect?

Directives have Horizontal Effect; Constitutionally more pleasing; and no need to satisfy the Van Gend en Loos criteria
Give free-standing rights to citizens; Works best where a clear conflict with national law; and works even where time limit is still running
No need for national law on the same area; constitutionally pleasing; and time limit on directive irrelevant
Faster as less need for Article 267 reference; Works best where there is a clear conflict in national law; and gives free-standing rights to citizens

Correct Answer

A. Directives have Horizontal Effect; Constitutionally more pleasing; and no need to satisfy the Van Gend en Loos criteria

Explanation

The advantages of Indirect Effect are that directives have horizontal effect, meaning they can be relied upon in disputes between private individuals; it is constitutionally more pleasing as it allows for the harmonization of EU law with national law; and there is no need to satisfy the Van Gend en Loos criteria, which means that individuals can directly rely on directives in national courts without the need for further interpretation.

Rate this question:

3.

Select all the disadvantages of Indirect Effect

Doesn't provide free-standing rights to citizens
Directives can only be enforced against Emanations of the State
The exceptions to the Time-Limit rule (in Wallonie and Werner-Mangold) do not apply
The courts would prefer to use Direct Effect
Cannot work where there is a clear conflict, or where there is no national law transposing the directive

Correct Answer(s)

A. Doesn't provide free-standing rights to citizens
A. The exceptions to the Time-Limit rule (in Wallonie and Werner-Mangold) do not apply
A. Cannot work where there is a clear conflict, or where there is no national law transposing the directive

Explanation

The disadvantages of Indirect Effect are that it doesn't provide free-standing rights to citizens, meaning that individuals cannot directly rely on the directive in court. Additionally, the exceptions to the Time-Limit rule (in Wallonie and Werner-Mangold) do not apply, limiting the effectiveness of Indirect Effect. Furthermore, it cannot work where there is a clear conflict, or where there is no national law transposing the directive, making it less applicable in certain situations.

Rate this question:

4.

The national courts prefer to use Indirect Effect (I'll mention again, could be worded as "Consistent Interpretation" or the "Von Colson Principle" in the exam) because; with the national legal system adopting a separation of powers, the judicial system should interpret the intention of Parliament. Disregarding national legislation, as may be necessary with Direct Effect, is contrary to the separation of powers, so Indirect Effect is therefore more constitutionally pleasing. There is a duty on the national courts to interpret the national law to be consistent with the community law... There have been uncertainties in this principle however. This case states that this principle is only available where the corresponding national law was introduced after the EU directive.

King
Duke
Centrosteel
Pfeiffer

Correct Answer

A. Duke

Explanation

The explanation for the correct answer, Duke, is that the case mentioned in the passage states that the principle of Indirect Effect, or Consistent Interpretation, is only applicable when the corresponding national law was introduced after the EU directive. This means that the national courts can interpret the national law in a way that is consistent with EU law, but only if the national law was implemented after the EU directive. Therefore, Duke is the correct answer because it aligns with the limitation mentioned in the passage.

Rate this question:

5.

Although Duke said that the Von Colson Principle/IDE/Consistent Interpretation is only available where the national law post-dates the EU directive, this case (as Shaun said...) Kills the Duke! Whether the national law post-dates the directive or was implemented before the directive therefore doesn't matter...

Marleasing
Duke
NUT
Pfeiffer

Correct Answer

A. Marleasing

Explanation

The correct answer is Marleasing. Marleasing is a legal principle established by the European Court of Justice that states that national courts must interpret national law in a way that is consistent with EU law, even if the national law predates the EU directive. This means that the timing of the national law in relation to the directive does not matter, and the national court must interpret the law in a way that aligns with the directive. The statement in the question suggests that Duke's argument about the timing of the national law is incorrect, and therefore Marleasing is the correct answer.

Rate this question:

6.

This case establishes the extent of the duty on the courts to make interpret the National Law in such a way that it is consistent with the provisions of the directive. The courts should do: everything possible but cannot resolve a clear conflict and are not legislators, so must not make new law.

Marleasing
Griffin
Von Colson
Wagner-Miret

Correct Answer

A. Wagner-Miret

Explanation

The correct answer is Wagner-Miret. This case establishes that the courts have a duty to interpret national law in a way that is consistent with the provisions of a directive. However, the courts cannot resolve a clear conflict and they are not legislators, so they should not create new laws. Therefore, the courts should do everything possible to interpret the law in line with the directive, but they have limitations in their role.

Rate this question:

7.

This case states the duty to adapt even well settled case law to be consistent with the directive

Centrosteel
Francovich II
Byrne
Pfeiffer

Correct Answer

A. Centrosteel

Explanation

The case of Centrosteel highlights the obligation to modify even established case law in order to align it with the directive. This implies that courts should not rely solely on precedent but should also consider the principles and objectives of the directive when interpreting and applying the law. By doing so, the court ensures consistency and compliance with the directive, even if it means deviating from previous decisions.

Rate this question:

8.

Although the duty is strong, the courts are not expected to go CONTRA LAGEM (Contrary to the Law - i.e. beyond the intention of Parliament)

Duke
Webb I
Impact
Marleasing

Correct Answer

A. Impact

Explanation

The term "Impact" refers to the principle established in the case of Marleasing, where the European Court of Justice stated that national courts are obligated to interpret domestic law in a manner that is consistent with EU law. This means that even if the domestic law is clear and unambiguous, if it conflicts with EU law, the courts should interpret it in a way that gives effect to the EU law. Therefore, the answer "Impact" suggests that the courts have a duty to ensure that their decisions align with EU law, even if it goes against the intention of the national legislature.

Rate this question:

9.

The UK courts take a wide approach to the duty laid out in the EU legislation discussed. In this case, the UK court added words to the legislation (providing there is no distortion of parliamentary intention) in order to make the law consistent.

Webb I
Litster
Byrne
Wagner-Miret

Correct Answer

A. Litster

Explanation

The UK courts have a broad interpretation of the duty outlined in the EU legislation mentioned. In this particular case, the UK court decided to include additional words in the legislation, as long as it did not distort the original intention of Parliament, in order to ensure consistency in the law.

Rate this question:

10.

On the other end of the scale, the UK courts ignored the approach laid out in Centrosteel and refused to adjust the case law to be consistent.

Webb I
Chessington World of Adventures
Impact
Litster

Correct Answer

A. Webb I

Explanation

The given answer "Webb I" suggests that the UK courts in this case followed the approach or decision laid out in the Webb I case. It indicates that the courts did not adjust the case law to be consistent with the Centrosteel approach, which implies that they did not consider the precedent set by Centrosteel and instead relied on the Webb I case. However, without further context or information about the specific details of these cases, it is difficult to provide a more detailed explanation.

Rate this question:

11.

In this case, the UK courts refused to interpret a contract to be consistent with a directive...

Byrne
Impact
Centrosteel
Litster

Correct Answer

A. Byrne

Explanation

The UK courts refused to interpret a contract to be consistent with a directive. This suggests that the courts did not believe that the directive should have any influence or impact on the interpretation of the contract. The courts likely considered the contract to be a separate legal agreement that should be interpreted based on its own terms and not influenced by external factors such as directives. This decision by the courts could have implications for how directives are applied and enforced in the UK legal system.

Rate this question:

Eu - Indirect Effect: Structure

When should Indirect Effect (Consistent Interpretation) be considered in the exam?

Quiz Preview

What are the advantages of Indirect Effect?

Select all the disadvantages of Indirect Effect

This case establishes the extent of the duty on the courts to make interpret the National Law in such a way that it is consistent with the provisions of the directive. The courts should do: everything possible but cannot resolve a clear conflict and are not legislators, so must not make new law.

This case states the duty to adapt even well settled case law to be consistent with the directive

Although the duty is strong, the courts are not expected to go CONTRA LAGEM (Contrary to the Law - i.e. beyond the intention of Parliament)

The UK courts take a wide approach to the duty laid out in the EU legislation discussed. In this case, the UK court added words to the legislation (providing there is no distortion of parliamentary intention) in order to make the law consistent.

On the other end of the scale, the UK courts ignored the approach laid out in Centrosteel and refused to adjust the case law to be consistent.

In this case, the UK courts refused to interpret a contract to be consistent with a directive...