University Criminal Law 2: A Deep Dive into the Direct Effect Doctrine

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of the Direct Effect Doctrine in EU Law. It begins by defining the doctrine, which allows individuals and businesses to enforce certain EU law provisions in national courts. The essay traces the doctrine's origins to the Van Gend en Loos case and outlines the three conditions established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for proving direct effect. It further explores the application of the doctrine to various legal instruments, including treaty articles, regulations, decisions, and directives, supported by landmark case laws such as Van Duyn v Home Office and Marshall v Southampton. The essay emphasizes the evolving nature of EU law and the doctrine's significance in shaping the relationship between EU law and national legal systems. The document concludes by summarizing the essence of the Direct Effect Doctrine, highlighting its ability to confer rights on individuals, which the courts of the EU member states must recognize and enforce.

Running head: Constitutional Law
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1Criminal Law
The direct effect doctrine allows natural persons and businesses for enforcing some
provisions of EU law in the national court (Nugent 2017). In European Union law, the doctrine
refers to the principle such that if it is properly framed can confer rights on individual people that
are to be recognized and enforced by the courts of the European Union’s member states. This
Direct Effect has been properly enumerated in none of the EU treaties (Barnard and Peers 2017).
Though every provision of the European Union law has the capability of direct effect, but it
cannot be said to be automatic. Direct effect is subjected to many terms and conditions listed by
the concerned court.
This direct effect doctrine was first established by the Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJEU) in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (Case
26/62). In subsequent time, direct effect has loosened its usage on the articles of treaty and
hence, ECJ expands the ambit of the doctrine considering that it has the capability to apply
virtually to every possible types of EU legislation, the most significant of which include the
regulations and the directives in some of the specific situations (Barnard and Peers 2017).
EU law evolves in various ways since the decision of the Van Gend en Loos case was
given. The ‘transformation of Europe’ is found so profound and deep that one can doubt that the
case may be helpful for facing the challenges faced in today’s world regarding the impact of EU
law in the national courts. The CJEU, in the stated case had identified three conditions that are
necessary to prove the direct effect of the primary European Union law. Those conditions are:
 The provision shall be stated in a clear and precise way,
 Such provision has to be without any condition and must not depend on any legal
provision,

2Criminal Law
 Further, it must impose a particular right on the basis of which the citizen can claim.
When these conditions are satisfied, the treaties’ provisions can be allowed to have the same
legal impact as regulations as per Article 288 of TFEU or Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union. The said doctrine has its application on treaty articles, regulations, decisions,
directives and procedural law.
The doctrine is applied when the specific provision depended satisfies the Van Gend en
Loos condition (Barnard and Peers 2017). Hence, it is applied in the case of treaty articles where
it can be vertically as well as horizontally directly effective. On the other hand, the regulations
are also affected by the direct effect. When a particular right is allowed, then a regulation may be
directly effective both horizontally and vertically effective. All types of regulations are directly
effective.
Again, decisions are effective directly as per Article 288 TFU against whoever such
decisions are addressed to. For directives, two landmark case laws can be referred. Firstly, the
case of Van Duyn v Home Office (1974) C-41/74 established direct vertical effect of the
Directives. Secondly, the case of Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area
Health Authority (1986) Case 152/84, an EU law case that stated that there lies no direct
horizontal effect of the Directives.
In the case of Comet v. Produktschap (Case 45/76) [1976] ECR 204, the European Court
of Justice stated that procedural rules that are being followed by each of the member states
generally can apply to the EU law cases.

3Criminal Law
Thus, it can be said that direct effect doctrine is that the Union law if properly framed has
the ability to confer rights on the individual persons that the courts of member states of the EU
must recognize and enforce.

4Criminal Law
References:
Nugent, N., 2017. The government and politics of the European Union. Palgrave.
Barnard, C. and Peers, S. eds., 2017. European union law. Oxford University Press.
Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (Case 26/62); [1963] ECR 1;
[1970] CMLR 1.
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Van Duyn v Home Office (1974) C-41/74.
Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (1986) Case 152/84.
Comet v. Produktschap (Case 45/76) [1976] ECR 204.