ButternutSquad
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
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
0
reply
Frankie1120
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Unconditional means that the directive isn't conditional upon certain circumstance further to the gist of the directive. The van gend conditions are a) clear and unconditional rights expressed; and b) with sufficient precision.

You are correct in saying that in the case of ratti (and becker), it is shown that until the implementation date has passed, there can be no reliance upon the directive.

If the date of implementation has passed (bearing in mind that if the date has not been written in the directive, the timescale is 20 days from publication - Art 297 TFEU), there can be state liability.
0
reply
Nolofinwë
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by ButternutSquad)
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 don't have time for a full reply, but I was going to observe that this is horizontal, not vertical, direct effect. However, I see that you recognise this. Don't just dismiss the horizontal claim because of the no-horizontal-direct-effect rule - be sure to consider all the methods of enforcing a directive horizontally despite that prohibition.

The person above has answered you questions well, but I would just observe that you shouldn't necessarily accept the temporal limit in Ratti as a fixed truth, because that limit depends on the estoppel rationale, and only the estoppel rationale, being the justification for vertical direct effect. Consider also what is said in Van Duyn.

PS positive/negative obligations mean the same as they would elsewhere, e.g. in tort. A positive obligation is an obligation to do something, an negative obligation an obligation to refrain from doing something.
0
reply
seems121
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
hi can someone help me with structuring the answer;

Imagine that Directive 2013/999 has been adopted in response to concerns aboutlow levels of safety protection offered to bus and coach passengers within theEuropean Union. This states that “all buses and coaches used by the public musthave passenger seatbelts fitted”. The Directive had to be implemented by 1st April2015.

The following situations have arisen:

a) In November 2014, Danielle was injured in a crash in Paris involving a coachshe was travelling on. The coach was not fitted with seatbelts and thisexacerbated her injuries. France implemented the Directive on 15th March2015. Before this, no French law had existed in this area.

b) In June 2015, Pedro was thrown from his seat when the local bus he wastravelling on crashed in Barcelona. He was injured as a result. The bus was notfitted with seatbelts. Spain had not implemented the Directive and there was noSpanish law covering this situation.

c) In August 2015, Sean was injured in Belfast while travelling to work on aminibus provided by the Belfast City Council mini-bus shuttle. The United EU LawLaw School Sept 2014 2Kingdom had implemented the Directive on 3rd March 2015 in the PublicTransport (Seat Belts) Regulations 2015. These specifically exclude minibuses.

Advise Danielle, Pedro and Sean as to whether or not they are entitled to aremedy under the Directive which they can enforce before their respectivenational courts.
0
reply
seems121
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Imagine that Directive 2013/999 has been adopted in response to concerns aboutlow levels of safety protection offered to bus and coach passengers within theEuropean Union. This states that “all buses and coaches used by the public musthave passenger seatbelts fitted”. The Directive had to be implemented by 1st April2015.

The following situations have arisen:

a) In November 2014, Danielle was injured in a crash in Paris involving a coachshe was travelling on. The coach was not fitted with seatbelts and thisexacerbated her injuries. France implemented the Directive on 15th March2015. Before this, no French law had existed in this area.

b) In June 2015, Pedro was thrown from his seat when the local bus he wastravelling on crashed in Barcelona. He was injured as a result. The bus was notfitted with seatbelts. Spain had not implemented the Directive and there was noSpanish law covering this situation.

c) In August 2015, Sean was injured in Belfast while travelling to work on aminibus provided by the Belfast City Council mini-bus shuttle. The United EU LawLaw School Sept 2014 2Kingdom had implemented the Directive on 3rd March 2015 in the PublicTransport (Seat Belts) Regulations 2015. These specifically exclude minibuses.

Advise Danielle, Pedro and Sean as to whether or not they are entitled to aremedy under the Directive which they can enforce before their respectivenational courts.

please please please someone who can help me structure the answer
0
reply
sanama
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
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
0
reply
hotliketea
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by sanama)
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
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'.
0
reply
hotliketea
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by ButternutSquad)
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 would probably be a lot easier for me to help you if i could see the question you've been asked, but basically;

If you think that vertical direct effect (VDE) can be used, you need to satisfy Van Duyn - sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional, where sufficiently clear and precise seems to mean 'unequivocal' (Marshall) and unconditional seems to mean 'not subject to the taking of any measure' (Molkerei-Zentrale)

If it can't have VDE, you should consider the judgment in Marshall stating that Directives do not, in general, have horizontal direct effect - to get around that, you need to frame her employer as an 'emanation of the state', use indirect effect, use incidental horizontal effect or (unlikely) refer to a general principle of EU law.

If the measure in question were a regulation, it would have HDE under Van Gend en Loos, as confirmed in Leonisio v Italian Ministry, and thus she could directly rely on it.
0
reply
sanama
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
I thought so too but was struggling with the logic. Your answer makes me feel alot better Thank you so much.
(Original post by hotliketea)
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'.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How do you prefer to get careers advice?

I like to speak to my friends and family (8)
9.76%
I like to do my own research online using careers specific websites (53)
64.63%
I like speaking to the careers advisors at school, college or uni (12)
14.63%
I prefer to listen watch videos or listen to podcasts of people in my chosen career (8)
9.76%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (1)
1.22%

Watched Threads

View All