The Direct effect is not considered

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Issue 1
The issue to be discussed in this present scenario is whether John have any rights under
the EU law.
Relevant Law
According to the law of EU the direct effect is understood as the principle and if such is
framed in an appropriate manner then it would confer the rights to the persons as the member
states which are a part of the European Union are considered to be bound to recognize and as
well as enforce. The Direct effect is not considered to be explicitly stated through any of the
Treaties of the European Union. This principle had been recognized first in the case of Van Gend
en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) Case 26/621 where the European
Court of Justice had recognized the requirements of the Treaty Establishing the European
Economic Community which were considered to be proficient of creating certain legal rights that
could be enforced through natural as well as legal persons before any of the courts relating to the
member states of the Community. The case had also been acknowledged as one of the most
significant and famous development of the law in the European law. The case is considered to be
the power for the suggestion where the articles of the treaty in EC are considered to be directly
effective as these were considered to be distinct in their application that was considered to be
against the state. The case is also considered to illustrate the creativeness of the jurisprudence of
the European Court of Justice.
The concept regarding the direct effect is not considered to have been mentioned in the
treaty. It had been held and observed by the court that such principle was considered to be
1 Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) Case 26/62

BUSINESS LAW2
necessary in order to safeguard that the acquiescence of the various member states would be with
their responsibilities under that of the Treaty of Rome. It had also been understood that the court
had taken a certain kind of decision which was under the influence of the French judge. The
judge’s speeches as well as the writings were considered to connect the principle of direct effect
with that of the suppression of the retaliation between the inter-state and along with such the
unilateral safeguard mechanisms were also considered to be within the European Economic
Community. In addition to such, the case also illustrates a process for the implementation of that
of the EC law, which would be at the domestic level or at the direct effect level and such, would
not necessitate the commission in order to bring up an action against any of the state. This case
was considered to be pivotal because it provided with a more efficient and effective distributed
mechanism for enforcement. In order to comply under the doctrine of direct effect the EU article
provision required to be clear as well as unconditional, negative and should be comprising of a
no arrangement on the part of the member state and along with such should not have been reliant
on any of the national applying measure.
If the criteria stated above had been fulfilled then the privileges in question could be
imposed before the national courts. It could also be understood from the case of Defrenne v
Sabena (No 2) (1976) Case 43/752 where the European Courts had discovered and decided that
there were two varieties of the direct effect the vertical effect and the horizontal effect. The
vertical effect was considered to focus on the affiliation between the EU law and along with such
the national law especially when there would be a state’s obligation to provide assurance of its
observance and its compatibility with that of the EU law. This would also enable the citizens to
2 Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) (1976) Case 43/75

BUSINESS LAW3
depend on the actions which would be against the public bodies as emanation of the state. It can
be understood from the case of Foster v. British Gas plc (Case C-188/89) [1990] (ECR I-3313)3.
Horizontal direct effect is considered to focused on the relationships that exists between
the individuals which are also inclusive of companies. If there has been a certain kind of
provision then the EU law is considered to be horizontally directly effective and the citizens
following such would be able to be dependent on the actions against each other. These Directives
are considered to be usually incapable of being effective horizontally and directly.
The European Court of Justice is considered to have developed certain general principle
regarding the state responsibility for certain kind of non-compliance with that of the EU law. The
state liability is considered to derive from the fact that the member states of the EU are
considered to be accountable for the creation regarding the implementation and along with such
the enforcement of the law of European Union. The enforcement of the various state liability is
considered to be for the violations of the several rights that have been granted to the individuals
by that of the European Union. Therefore, the implementation of the state liability for certain
kind of violations would be granted to the people or the individuals who are governed by the law
of European Union. These would also include the fields of employment and along with such the
industrial relations which is carried out through various national courts of the different members
states. Such can be observed through the case of Andrea Francovich and Others v. Italian
Republic, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, [1991] ECR I-53574.
3 Foster v. British Gas plc (Case C-188/89) [1990] (ECR I-3313)
4 Andrea Francovich and Others v. Italian Republic, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, [1991] ECR I-5357