I get that this case had the effect of stopping horizontal direct effect of directives; however, can anyone explain to me the effect this case had on UK courts applying EU supremacy and any implications on national parliamentary supremacy? Was it to do with the courts enforcing the vertical direct effect against the health authority, even though Parliament had not yet implemented the directive?
Marshall v Southampton Area Health Authority Watch
- Thread Starter
- 11-04-2011 21:33
- 13-04-2011 19:58
Basically, I think it stated that where a directive was sufficiently clear and precise it can be relied upon in the national courts even if it hasn't been implemented.
Obviously this impacts on parliamentary supremacy because the idea behind directives that national governments choose the methods in which the directives are enforced in the national law and this case provides that in certain cases directives can have vertical direct effect (against the state or emanations of it) prior to its implementation so basically the government get no say until they implement it.
So yea you basically had it with your second question I think!