Case Discussion: Francovich v. Italy (1991) C-6&9/90

Case Discussion
IRAC Framework

Francovich v. Italy (1991) C-6&9/90
Facts
In the present case Mr. Francovich and other employees were not paid for their jobs due to the
insolvency of their employer. The plaintiff approached the Italian court and when they failed to
recognise the issue the plaintiff moved to the European Court of Justice. The protection of
employees was threatened and to safeguard the same direct effect and general principle of the
ECJ was implemented.
Issue
Were Francovich and the others liable for payment from its employer that was liquidated and
was there any liability of the state (Italy) in the damages caused by the breach by the state
community law?
Rule
The provisions are simple that every state has to safeguard its people and within the EU all
entities have to abide by the rules and regulations of EU. The court created general principle
direct effect which would be applicable.
Analysis
The case is quite clear that the liquidated company did have obligation towards its employees
which was clearly not met as it was dissolved. What stands to be important is to understand the
role of the Italian court and the government and how they behaved initially. As per the rulings of
European Court of Justice it is important to note that every country within the European Union
has to implement the general principles and laws which were not done in the present case. Italy
as a nation failed to implement Council Directive 80/897. Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse
Administratie der Belastingen Case 26/62 is one of the benchmark cases which has helped to
establish the role of directives and its direct effect on a case. In this case it is important to note
that the EU laws are largely supranational in nature. The laws could not only take the form of
preliminary laws but could also be considered as directives and verdict. The directives mainly act
as a right that could be enforced against a state in the local courts of member states and in this
case this is exactly what happened. The case clearly highlights that the development of the state