EU Law: European Court of Justice - Coursework Example

?EU Law Table of Contents Introduction 3 Explanation of Direct and Indirect Effect of EU Law and Liability 4 Rights of Anne-Marie under EU Law 6 Rights of Jhon under EU Law 8 Action that can be taken by the European Commission against the UK (Anne-Marie Case) 9 Action that can be taken by the European Commission against the UK (Jhon Case) 10 References 12 Bibliography 13 13 Introduction European Union (EU) law refers to a bulk of treaties as well as legislation which entail regulations along with directives that possess either direct or indirect effect upon the laws of EU Member States. The ‘European Court of Justice (ECJ)’ has created certain guidelines for those members of community who are disobeying the EU law. Contextually, state liability emerges from the aspect that the EU Member States that are bound by the treaties are accountable for the development regarding the execution as well as enforcement of European Union (EU) law. Enforcement concerning a state’s legal responsibility for the infringement of rights which are imposed upon the individual member of the states comprises the aspects such as employment and industrial relation which are controlled by the ECJ of the Member States. Most of the EU regulations which specify certain directives concerning the areas of employment as well as industrial relation are implemented with the assistance of policies of direct effect of directives. The direct effect of directives affirms that the states as well as ‘emanation of the state’ are accountable even if legal responsibilities regarding non-execution of the EU directives reclines with the other parties of the state. The effect of directives is limited by the persistence of ECJ on the basis of the implications of vertical legal responsibilities of the states which are referred as vertical direct effect. Contextually, horizontal direct effect is regarded as a doctrine whereby individual members can depend on obtaining direct effect in relation to provisions within the treaties1. Explanation of Direct and Indirect Effect of EU Law and State Liability Direct effect is considered as a guideline of EU law where it emphasizes on those factors of EU law which are directly enforceable by union community members within their own Member States. Moreover, direct effect can be implemented by concerning upon directives, regulations, treaty provisions and its decisions. The notion of ‘direct effect’ was first utilized by the ECJ when it attributed to particular Treaty articles the legal value of direct effect in the case of NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen case no.26/62 [1963]. In this case, ECJ recognized three circumstances which are essential to establish direct effect within the EU law. Three circumstances are as follows: The provision should maintain enough clarity and should be accurately stated This provision should be restricted and not related with any other legal stipulation It should bestow an appropriate right by which a citizen can make a claim If these aforementioned conditions are fulfil then the stipulation of the treaties can provide similar legal effects as regulations mentioned in the Article 288 ‘Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TEFU)’2. The policy of indirect effect needs the decision of national court where parties of the Member States are responsible for the fulfilment of EU obligations. Contextually, this policy enforces indirectly by the mechanism of judicial interpretation of domestic law. Moreover, indirect effect can be viewed as an addition regulation of EU law as well as a consequence of the policy of direct effect. On the basis of the implication of the specification of directives which creates direct effect wherein national court should ignore the domestic laws in order to minimize the conflict between the directives as well as domestic law3. The indirect effect has been observed to take place in the case of Plaumann & Co v Commission, Case 25/62, 15 July 19634. The ECJ has the right in circumstances when any Member State fails to incorporate a directive into domestic law within the specific time limits to deem it as an infringement of EU law which may give rise to State liability. This aforementioned circumstance has been observed in the case of Dillenkoffer and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, Cases C-178-9/94, 188-190/94 [1996]5 A directive refers to a lawful act provided for within the EU Treaty. It is regarded to be binding and it enforces the Member States to incorporate the specified legal guidelines into the national law within a particular deadline. There are certain kinds of EU directives that establish laws concerning upon minimum health as well as safety requirements about the protection of workers as well as individual people of the Member States. European Commission sets out a program that proposes a strategy in order to endorse community safety as well as provide a healthy environment within the workplace of the firms. At present, health along with safety strategy is one of the significantly considered aspects within the EU doctrine6. Rights of Anne-Marie under EU Law Directive 03/998 of EU law generally concentrates upon safety in underground transport such as lifts which carry passengers from the ground level to the upper level. This directive also affirms that entire underground transport facilities should be appropriately maintained by the surveillance company. This directive mentions certain minimum requirements as well as establishes general guidelines including certain legal standards that should be maintained in terms of prevention and risk evaluation. Moreover, this directive also affirms that safety standard should be upheld for every individual of the Member States. This directive was imposed with a view to comply with Safety Standard 3011 and it was approved by the EU council in the year 2011, later it was implemented by the Member States in the year 2012. By taking into concern the case of Anne-Marie, it can be observed that she is a French secretary employed in London. On 1st April 2012, she was stuck inside the lift at Covent Garden tube station in London. After opening of the lift by lift engineer, it suddenly moved back rapidly resulting in severe bruising as well as cuts to the left arm of Anne-Marie. On the basis of the implication of health and safety strategy mentioned in EU doctrine, private surveillance company should be responsible for the maintenance of the lifts. It implies that the private surveillance or maintenance company in-charge of ensuring the required repair activities of lift at Covent Garden tube station did not follow the requisite Safety Standard 30117. Anne-Marie can not take legal actions against the UK Commission for not following the Directive 03/998 because it has been observed that UK Commission still did not execute the Directive 03/998. Anne-Marie should communicate with the Member States of the European Commission and file a complaint to ECJ in relation to non-implementation of Directive 03/998. As a Member State of European Commission, the United Kingdom should have implemented the Directive 03/998 within a specific deadline and followed it accordingly. Moreover, it has been observed that in January 2011, this directive was already approved by the Council and it was implemented by other Member States of EU on 1st January 2012. Moreover, it is viewed that after 1 year of approval, the UK Commission still did not implement this directive, thus it is right of Anne-Marie to file a complaint to ECJ against the UK Commission for not following the Safety Standard 3011. As a French national, it the right of Anne-Marie to take legal action against the private maintenance company that can be held responsible for the maintenance of lift. As per the European safety and health measures which are mentioned under the Directive 03/998, it is the right of Anne-Marie to make inquiry against the UK Commission for not conforming to the Safety Standard 30118. It can also be stated that in her home country i.e. France, Anne-Marie would be protected by the concerned directive as France as a part of the Member States is already supposed to have implemented it. Thus, obtaining similar protection in the UK from the concerned EU directive is her definite right in this scenario. Rights of Jhon under EU Law Directive 03/998 also affirms that no waste material should be dumped in underground premises. The implication of this aspect which is mentioned in this directive was approved by the UK Commission by passing a statute in November 2011. This UK statute prohibits dumping of waste materials on underground platforms. However, it does compel the concerned persons to main the similar requirement regarding dumping of waste materials in connecting tunnels or escalators. In the case, Jhon, an elderly gentleman who had poor eyesight fell down after tripping over a metal container which was left in the middle of the passage leading to the platform. It has been observed that European Commission already passed this directive regarding the dumping of waste materials but the UK did not adequately implement it. Therefore, it is the right of Jhon to take legal actions against UK Commission and file a complaint to ECJ. Contextually, it is the responsibility of UK Commission to implement this directive and follow the rules of EU law regarding the dumping of waste materials. Moreover, the aforementioned directive prohibits that waste materials should not be dumped on underground passages. However, in terms of the case of Jhon he fell down being struck by a metal container which was left behind at the middle of the passage which led to the platform. In this situation he can file a legal complaint to both the Council of EU as well as UK Commission. He can take legal action against EU for not explicitly mentioning within the Directive 03/998 that underground premises should contain escalators and connecting tunnels as well. Moreover, complaint can be lodged against UK Commission as well because it did not completely adhere to the directive regarding the dumping of waste materials in an appropriate place i.e. a suitable dumping zone. Contextually, it has been observed that without adequate verification UK Commission approved this directive by passing a statute. Therefore, Jhon has full right to take legal actions against the concerned authorities. Action that can be taken by the European Commission against the UK (Anne-Marie Case) In relation to the case of Anne-Marie, European Commission has the full right to take legal actions against the UK Commission. It has been observed that all the Member States of European Commission already had approved Directive 03/998 and were following Safety Standard 3011 from 1st January 2012. When the incident with Anne-Marie occurred on 1st April 2012, it has the fault of UK Commission for not executing this directive as well as not following the Safety Standard 3011. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Commission to communicate with UK Commission and verify the reason behind non-implementation of the said directive within the mentioned deadline. It was the responsibility of the UK Commission to implement this directive when it was approved by the Council and it should take initiatives for maintaining health and safety standard of the community members of the nation. It can be assumed that due to lack of concern and inappropriate communication with the other Member States of EU, UK Commission can be said to have failed to implement and follow this directive. As per the EU law, European Commission has the full right to take serious initiatives against UK for infringement of this directive. The guidelines of states liability affirms that if any State is not obliging with the required directives and in the mean time an individual member of the State faces certain injury or damage then that particular State can be held responsible. Therefore, as per the principle of state liability, Commission should take legal action and file a complaint to ECJ against the council members of UK. By taking into concern regarding Anne-Marie case, it can be treated under the notion of indirect effect where as a Member State of European Commission, it is the responsibility of the UK to obey and fulfil the necessary obligations of EU law. Action that can be taken by the European Commission against the UK (Jhon Case) By considering the case of Jhon, it can be stated that European Commission possesses the complete authority to take legal action against the UK for not appropriately obeying the Directive 03/998. As per guidelines of state liability, every Member State of EU should implement the directives which are mentioned in the EU law and are already approved by the Council members of EU. In this case, it has been observed that the directive already mentioned that no waste materials should be dumped on underground platforms. After approving this directive, UK statute exhibits that no waste material should be dumped on underground platforms only. However, this statute does not prohibit dumping of waste materials on connecting tunnels as well as on escalators. In this context, it is observed that Jhon fell down after he was tripped over by a metal container which can be considered as a waste material. Moreover, the container was left unattended in the middle of the passage leading towards the platform. Subsequently, it can be affirmed that as per the directive it was the task of the concerned members in the UK to look after that no waste material is left behind in the platform area. Therefore, as per the directive, UK should follow the mentioned rule of EU law due to which Jhon can make a claim either upon the Council members of EU who did not properly judge this directive before accepting or can take a legal action against the UK Commission. In this circumstance, the Commission can not take direct action against UK because it was the fault of Council members who approved this directive. Therefore, it can be recommended to the Commission that before passing any directive it should appropriately clarify or judge the mentioned clauses so that any gap can be averted within the legal framework. References Asser Institute, ‘The Principle of State Liability’ [2013] (Centre for International & European Law) accessed 11January 2013. Eurofound, ‘State Liability’ [2011] (European Industrial Relations Dictionary) accessed 11 January 2013. Eurofound, ‘Direct Effect’ [2011] (European Industrial Relations Dictionary) accessed 11 January 2013. Eurofound, ‘Indirect Effect’ [2010] (European Industrial Relations Dictionary) accessed 11 January 2013. European Agency for Safety and Health Work, ‘European Directives’ [No Date] (Legislation) accessed 11 January 2013. UNECE, ‘Detailed Analysis of the Courts’ Jurisprudence’ [2012] (The Plaumann Case) accessed 11 January 2013. Bibliography Damian Chalmers, Gareth Davies and Giorgio Monti, European Union Law: Cases and Materials. (Cambridge University Press, 2010). European Commission, ‘Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and Of the Council’ (2011) L (174) Official Journal of the European Union 74, 87. European Commission, ‘Directives’ (2011) L (194) Official Journal of the European Union 48, 56. Read More