European Union Law - Essay Example

Law: European Union Law Question b. Direct effect is a principle of the European Union law that confers individual rights thereby binding the courts to recognize such rights and to enforce them. Direct effects deals with loses suffered directly by either party in a legal tussle, the courts recognize the breeches on such rights and advises effective legal compensation in cases either party sustains and proves legitimate losses that they suffer directly1. For effective determination of direct effect, the EU article meets the following criteria key among which are clarity and unconditional.

Additionally, the article must have a negative obligation, contain no reservation on the part of the member state and not depend on any national implementing measure. It is only after proving the above that the rights are conferred and enforced. The case below involve a scenario in which the employment laws of the United Kingdom and Wales discriminate against the female gender as opposed to the provisions of the European Union which postulates equality. The appellant, Miss Marshall a former employee of the Southampton and southwest Hampshire health authority comes under intense discrimination around her retirement.

The employment laws the United Kingdom and Wales dictate that women retire at age 60 while their male counterparts at age 65. The five-year difference is discriminative enough owing to the fact that European Union calls for equal employment opportunities for both genders. Miss Marshall retains her position with the authority until she is sixty-two, is an open contravention of the laws of the land. She ought to have started receiving her pension by age sixty but now that she worked until sixty-two, she experiences delays following difficulty in harmonizing her employment details.

This is a direct effect since she suffers financial loss. This is the greatest point of arguments since every employee in the land is entitled to a government pension. Her employers held her to her position deliberately despite her advanced age and some has to take responsibility. Additionally, she is active and still feels productive enough, her forceful retrenchment therefore denies her the satisfaction she once derived from her employment a point, which points out to the discriminator nature of the United Kingdom’s employment laws.

Question c. The court bases its arguments on a number of legal provisions that the appellant had failed to notice. The first argument is the appellant was employed on contract basis. Under contract, the employer reserves the rights to renew the contract and the employee has minimal effect on that. Contract laws give the employer all the authority to manipulate the employee terms provided the employer agrees to them. The rights of the employer stay relevant to his or her employer only for the period that he or she is an employee.

Miss Marshall’s term had expired irrespective of her age and therefore depended on her employer to renew her term but she lacked the grounds compel her employers to renew her terms. Additionally, the pension laws dictate that women begin receiving their payments at age sixty while men at sixty-five. This law does not state that one has to quit employment before the payment of the pension takes effect. The financial loss that Miss Marshall suffers is therefore not because she still was employed but arises from operational inconsistencies of the pension scheme.

She is therefore advised to seek legal redress by taking the pension body to court. Furthermore, the fat that her employer finds her relevant even after she is sixty points out to the fact that her employer had not discriminated against her gender or else she they could her retrenched her once she turned sixty. On the contrary, her employer retains her two years into the legal retirement age for women. The lack of satisfaction that she therefore suffers is not an obligation of her employer but her personal intuitions.

Question c. Emanation of the state is principle within the European law used in reference to any state body that provides public service but under the control of the government. Such state bodies operate independently but with little control from the government, in the United Kingdom for example such bodies deal with the employment of doctors, police and teachers. Employees of such bodies are therefore not necessarily civil servants and the government is blameless on any legal tussle that might arise between the bodies and their employees or any other legal case involving the bodies2.

In the case, Miss Marshall is an employee of the Southampton and Southwest Hampshire Area Health Authority. This is the legal body entrusted with the contracting of medical practitioners in the region; the body therefore is the employer of all medical practitioners and not the government. In the case that follows, the government does not feature and therefore does not take any legal responsibility whichever way the case turns out. The same applies should Miss Marshall subsequently file a case with the pension authority.

She therefore has no case with the government but the statutory bodies formed by the government through acts of parliament to offer such public services. Reference Alter, Karen J. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001.