EU Law QuestionWatch
A directive adopted in 2012 requires the owners of dogs weighing more than 15 kilos to insure themselves against the risk of injury to persons or property caused by their dogs. The deadline for implementing the directive expired in 2016, but no legislation to give effect to the directive has been adopted by Carne (a fictional Member State). The government of Carne considered new legislation to be unnecessary because a statute adopted in 2008 already requires insurance in the circumstances contemplated by the directive.
Last month, Gurpreet was savaged by a large Alsation dog which had attacked her Labradoodle while she was walking with it in Cannon Hill Park. The Labradoodle was killed and Gurpreet suffered extensive injuries. The Alsation dog is owned by a security firm which provides services to commercial enterprises and a number of government departments. When Gurpreet approaches the security firm, she is told that, in the view of the firm, the 2008 legislation only covers privately-owned dogs.
Advise Gurpreet as to her rights under EU law
Remember to use the IRAC method obviously but I'll focus on what you could potentially discuss.
Talk about the effect of directives i.e. vertical quasi-direct effect ("direct effect") and interpretation in conformity ("indirect effect") but no horizontal quasi-direct effect
Then you sort of have to draw a flow chart in your mind so like first consider whether the security firm is an emanation of the state using case law, and say what can be relied on if it is or is not (so direct effect and indirect effect respectively)
As the directive used is fictional and no national legislation is provided I would then jump to state liability to talk about potential remedies and the like.