European Union Law - Case Study Example

Hauptzollamt Saarlouis [1966] relied on in Van Duyn v Home Office [1974]. Therefore since Mark works for a Council this can be construed as an emanation of the State (specifically Costanzo [1989] ECR 1839) and it is submitted that the phrase in the Directive "the use of chlorine cleaning agents in swimming pools is prohibited" meets all the criteria for the Directive to be directly applicable. However this is not true for Sunita. The swimming pool is a private company, and she is a user of the pool.

Under the 'direct effect' provisions, she would have no redress as she wishes to sue an individual rather than the State or an emanation of the State. As seen in the following case, the Court of Justice does not allow the direct horizontal enforcement of Directives. In Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) [1986] Helen Marshall sought to sue a health authority for retirement age discrimination under the Equal Treatment Directive 1976. The Court of Justice held that there was no 'horizontal effect' to a Directive where a government had failed to implement a Directive.

Helen Marshall could not sue the Health Authority in these circumstances. If the employer is not the State or an emanation of the State th. If the employer is not the State or an emanation of the State then the Court of Justice allows the national court to look at indirect effect. In the absence of domestic legislation being in place, national courts are empowered by the Court of Justice to enforce the provisions of the Directive in order to ensure that the aim of the Directive is carried out.

In this case the aim of the Directive is to prohibit the use of chlorine in all swimming pools throughout Member States. The national court would therefore be called upon to make the use of chlorine cleaning agents unlawful in the UK and sanction the transgressors accordingly, providing remedies under standard contractual law within the precedents currently relied upon by national courts.In Von Coulson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] 2 female applicants successfully sued prison administrators for sexual discrimination when 2 posts advertised for social workers went to males.

The question before the court was whether the Equal Treatment Directive 1976 specifically required that discrimination be remedied by the appointment of the complainant to the post. The Court of Justice said no, but that it did require the national law to provide an adequate and effective remedy: "national courts are required to interpret their national law in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive in order to achieve the result referred to in the third paragraph of Article [249].

" 2 An advantage of this approach is that unlike direct effect the provisions in question do not have to be clear, precise, unconditional and require no further implementation. Hence Van Coulson was able to indirectly rely on the provision against a State employer. We are specifically told that the only