Essay 2 - EU Law Assignment

Running Head: EU LAW
EU LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
EU LAW MEMORANDUM-1
To: EU Division (Trainees)
From: Alison McBeal
Re: Mr. Perrin and Directive 2018/108/EU
Date: 14 April 2020
The first issue to be determined is whether the Directive 2018 have any direct effect on
Sunshine Desserts or not. It to be said that directives are implemented by a high-level official
or member states and its rule must be clear, unconditional and binding1. An important factor
to obtain the direct effect of a directive it must have to cross the transposition period for an
individual to rely upon its effect2.
The first thing to be determined is whether any defense is available to Mr. Perrin against his
employer’s disciplinary action that is to be taken against him under the directive for his
tardiness. Article 4 of the Directive provides defenses to an employee by prohibiting the
employer from taking any disciplinary action if the employee can show that the reason for
such disciplinary action by the employer against the employee is not due to the fault of him
or her. However, the article does not specify actions related to what kind of misconduct is
protected under this rule but it can be interpreted more broadly by focusing on the word 'any
disciplinary action' includes tardiness.
To obtain a direct vertical effect of a directive the organization in issue has to be a public
body who has some special power to do certain public service3. Therefore, the direct effect of
the directive is not applicable in this case, as Sunshine Dessert is not a public body.
1 Case 41/74, Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337
2 Case 148/78, Ratti [1979] ECR 1629
3 Case C-188/89, Foster v British Gas [1990] ECR I-3313