Eu - Indirect Effect: Structure
Settings
- 1.When should Indirect Effect (Consistent Interpretation) be considered in the exam?
- A.
First before anything else
- B.
After Direct Effect and Direct Applicability
- C.
Before Alternatives to Litigation
- D.
It doesn't really matter...
- 2.
- A.
Directives have Horizontal Effect; Constitutionally more pleasing; and no need to satisfy the Van Gend en Loos criteria
- B.
Give free-standing rights to citizens; Works best where a clear conflict with national law; and works even where time limit is still running
- C.
No need for national law on the same area; constitutionally pleasing; and time limit on directive irrelevant
- D.
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
- 3.Select all the disadvantages of Indirect Effect
- A.
Doesn't provide free-standing rights to citizens
- B.
Directives can only be enforced against Emanations of the State
- C.
The exceptions to the Time-Limit rule (in Wallonie and Werner-Mangold) do not apply
- D.
The courts would prefer to use Direct Effect
- E.
Cannot work where there is a clear conflict, or where there is no national law transposing the directive
- 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.
- A.
King
- B.
Duke
- C.
Centrosteel
- D.
Pfeiffer
- 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...
- A.
Marleasing
- B.
Duke
- C.
NUT
- D.
Pfeiffer
- 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.
- A.
Marleasing
- B.
Griffin
- C.
Von Colson
- D.
Wagner-Miret
- 7.This case states the duty to adapt even well settled case law to be consistent with the directive
- A.
Centrosteel
- B.
Francovich II
- C.
Byrne
- D.
Pfeiffer
- 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)
- A.
Duke
- B.
Webb I
- C.
Impact
- D.
Marleasing
- 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.
- A.
Webb I
- B.
Litster
- C.
Byrne
- D.
Wagner-Miret
- 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.
- A.
Webb I
- B.
Chessington World of Adventures
- C.
Impact
- D.
Litster
- 11.In this case, the UK courts refused to interpret a contract to be consistent with a directive...
- A.
Byrne
- B.
Impact
- C.
Centrosteel
- D.
Litster
Back to top