Indirect effect

Last updated

Indirect effect is a principle of the European Union (EU) law, whereby national courts of the member states of the EU are required to interpret national law in line with provisions of EU law. The principle of indirect effect contrasts with the principle of direct effect, which, under certain conditions, allows individuals to invoke the EU law itself before national courts.

The indirect effect arises from the failure of a member state to implement a directiveeither correctly or at allbut where the direct effect cannot apply because the party against whom the directive is sought to be enforced is a private entity or otherwise fails to meet the conditions which would give the directive direct effect. In Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen , the ECJ ruled that national courts should interpret national law in line with the directive, "in so far as it is given the discretion to do so under national law". [1] While Von Colson dealt with a situation where a member state had failed to implement a directive correctly, in Marleasing v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion the ECJ extended indirect effect to situations where the member state concerned had not implemented the directive at all. [2]

While the indirect effect is of great importance especially in relation to directives, recommendations and opinions could have indirect effect as well. Recommendations and opinions have no binding force, like directives have. However, in Grimaldi v Fonds des Maladies Professionnelles the ECJ has ruled that since recommendations and opinions must have some legal effect, they should be taken into consideration when dealing with measures that the two were supposed to supplement. [3]

See also

Notes

  1. Case 14/83 [1984] ECR 1891 at para 28.
  2. Case C-106/89, [1990] ECR I-4135.
  3. Berry, Elspeth; Hargreaves, Sylvia (2007-03-29). European Union Law. OUP Oxford. p. 63. ISBN   9780199282449.

Related Research Articles

European Court of Justice Supreme court in the European Union, part of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The European Court of Justice, formally just the Court of Justice, is the supreme court of the European Union in matters of European Union law. As a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its equal application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

Directive (European Union) Legislative act of the European Union

A directive is a legal act of the European Union which requires member states to achieve a particular result without dictating the means of achieving that result. Directives first have to be enacted into National law by member states before its laws are ruling on Individuals residing in their countries. Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. Directives can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures depending on their subject matter.

European Union law System of rules operating within the member states of the European Union

European Union law is a system of rules operating within the member states of the European Union. Since the founding of the Coal and Steel Community after World War II, the EU has developed the aim to "promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples". The EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend nation states for the purpose of cooperation and human development. According to its Court of Justice the EU represents "a new legal order of international law".

In European Union law, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.

Incidental effect is a concept in European Union law that allows the use of indirect effect of EU directives in private legal actions. While an individual cannot be sued for failure to comply with an EU directive, the state's failure to comply can be an incidental factor in a suit against an individual, where it will not impose legal obligations upon them.

EFTA Court

The Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States is a supranational judicial body responsible for the three EFTA members who are also members of the European Economic Area (EEA): Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

Francovich v Italy (1991) C-6/90 was a decision of the European Court of Justice which established that European Union Member States could be liable to pay compensation to individuals who suffered a loss by reason of the Member State's failure to transpose an EU directive into national law. This principle is sometimes known as the principle of state liability or "the rule in Francovich" in European Union law.

Primacy of European Union law

The primacy of European Union law is an EU law principle that when there is conflict between European law and the law of its member states, European law prevails, and the norms of national law are set aside. The principle was developed by the European Court of Justice, which interpreted that norms of European law take precedence over any norms of national law, including the constitutions of member states. Although national courts generally accept the principle in practice, most of them disagree with that absolute principle and reserve, in principle, the right to review the constitutionality of European law under national constitutional law.

Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA (1990) C-106/89 was a decision of the European Court of Justice concerning the indirect effect of European Community law, now European Union law. It established that the courts of European Union member states have a duty to interpret national legislation in the light of unimplemented European Union directives.

Metock v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (2008) C-127/08 is an EU law case, significant in Ireland and Denmark, on the Citizens Rights Directive and family unification rules for migrant citizens. Citizenship of the European Union was established by Article 20 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Citizenship Directive 2004/38 elaborates the right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a member state, consolidating previous Directives dealing with the right to move and reside within the European Community (EC).

The relationship between the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an issue in European Union law and human rights law. The ECJ rules on European Union (EU) law while the ECtHR rules on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which covers the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Cases cannot be brought in the ECtHR against the European Union, but the Court has ruled that states cannot escape their human rights obligations by saying that they were implementing EU law.

<i>Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet</i>

Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet (2007) C-341/05 is an EU law case, relevant to all labour law within the European Union, which held that there is a positive right to strike. However, it also held that the right to strike must be exercised proportionately and in particular this right was subject to justification where it could infringe the right to freedom to provide services under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 56.

Mangold v Helm (2005) C-144/04 was a case before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) about age discrimination in employment.

<i>Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd</i>

Alemo-Herron v Parkwood Leisure Ltd (2013) C-426/11 is an EU law and UK labour law case concerning whether an employer may agree to incorporate a collective agreement into an individual contract, and if that agreement has a provision for automatic updating of some terms, whether that transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006. The UK Supreme Court referred to the European Court of Justice the question whether national courts could give a more favourable interpretation to legislation than had been given by German courts.

Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co KG (2006) C-499/04 is a European labour law case concerning the minimum floor of requirements in the European Union for the enforceability of a collective agreement after a transfer of a business.

Vatsouras and Koupatantze v ARGE is a case decided by the European Court of Justice which deals with the concepts of 'worker' and 'social assistance' under European Union law.


Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (1984) Case 14/83 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.

<i>Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl</i>

Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl (1994) C-91/92 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.

Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European Union (2002) C-50/00 P is an EU law case, concerning judicial review in the European Union.