EU law problem question help please!

Hello,

I am struggling to get my head around some basic concepts with EU law.

Firstly, the Van Gend En Loos criteria - I follow about it needing to be clear and precise, but what does 'unconditional' mean?
What does positive / negative obligation mean?

Can directives have indirect effect prior to the date of implementation expiring? or is it very much, if the date hasn't passed, then no one can rely on it at all?

I have been given a problem question, but I can't start to tackle it until I understand what the following terms mean. I have tried googling but I can't really find any basic definitions of the above!

My problem is regarding whether an individual can rely on a directive which states that teachers are to be paid double when working over-time. I have to discuss whether if it was a regulation, things would be different. X works as a teacher at a private school - X has not been receiving double pay for her over-time and has complained to no avail - advise.

It does not state whether the date of implementation has passed, nor does it state whether the government has implemented any statute to reflect the directive in national law. I guess they are expecting me to write in a speculative way.

I am leaning towards saying that whether the directive has direct effect would depend on whether the date of implementation had passed (Ratti), and whether the Van Gend criteria is met (I understand this so far as clear and concise, but not sure on 'unconditional' meaning!). If not then could indirect effect be possible? if the date of implementation had not passed? Either way I would suggest that X could not bring a case against her employer, as directives do not have horizontal direct effect, but perhaps state liability is an option?
If it were a regulation I would say that it does have direct effect, depending on again whether the Van Gend criteria is met.

I may be completely wrong but thats where I am this far!

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks

i have got a problem question for EU. Just wanted to make sure that the way im doing it is right.
"Choki is a major German producer of chocolate products. It exports its products across the EU, and typically supplies 3,000 tonnes of chocolate products a year to French supermarkets. It markets its products throughout the EU using a successful TV advert starring Kirsten Dunst. Since August of 2015, all of its exports of chocolate products to France have been refused entry at the French border. The reason given by the French border authorities is that Choki uses Carigan (fictitious), an additive that may be damaging to human health. The scientific evidence relating to Carigan is inconclusive, but a documentary aired on the effects of Carigan on French TV gave rise to a movement against Carigan that eventually lead to a law being passed in France banning the sale of all products containing Carigan.
France has additionally banned the advertising of all sweets, including chocolate, on French TV in an attempt to curb raising rates of obesity.
Advise Choki as to its rights in relation to the selling and advertising of its products in France."

basically what i wanted to confirms is that the act of French border to refuse entry to all Choki products, is it a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect? and why?

please help
thanks

Hello,

I am struggling to get my head around some basic concepts with EU law.

Firstly, the Van Gend En Loos criteria - I follow about it needing to be clear and precise, but what does 'unconditional' mean?
What does positive / negative obligation mean?

Can directives have indirect effect prior to the date of implementation expiring? or is it very much, if the date hasn't passed, then no one can rely on it at all?

I have been given a problem question, but I can't start to tackle it until I understand what the following terms mean. I have tried googling but I can't really find any basic definitions of the above!

My problem is regarding whether an individual can rely on a directive which states that teachers are to be paid double when working over-time. I have to discuss whether if it was a regulation, things would be different. X works as a teacher at a private school - X has not been receiving double pay for her over-time and has complained to no avail - advise.

It does not state whether the date of implementation has passed, nor does it state whether the government has implemented any statute to reflect the directive in national law. I guess they are expecting me to write in a speculative way.

I am leaning towards saying that whether the directive has direct effect would depend on whether the date of implementation had passed (Ratti), and whether the Van Gend criteria is met (I understand this so far as clear and concise, but not sure on 'unconditional' meaning!). If not then could indirect effect be possible? if the date of implementation had not passed? Either way I would suggest that X could not bring a case against her employer, as directives do not have horizontal direct effect, but perhaps state liability is an option?
If it were a regulation I would say that it does have direct effect, depending on again whether the Van Gend criteria is met.

I may be completely wrong but thats where I am this far!

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks

it's a quantitative restriction because they've stopped the product at the border - they've stopped the product ever actually coming into the territory. you can work out which is which by comparing the definition of a QR with that of an MEEQR;
According to Geddo v Ente Nazionale, a QR is something which 'amounts to a total or partial restraint of, according to the circumstances, imports, exports' etc.
According to Dassonville, an MEEQR is something which is 'capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade'.