Van Duyn v Home Office

Last updated

Van Duyn v Home Office
European stars.svg
European Court of Justice
Submitted 1 March 1974
Decided 4 December 1974
Full case name Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office.
CaseC-41/74
CelexID 61990J0006
ECLI ECLI:EU:C:1974:133
Case typeReference for a preliminary ruling
Nationality of parties The Netherlands
United Kingdom
Procedural history[1975] Ch 358
Court composition
Judge-Rapporteur
Max Sørensen
Advocate General
Henri Mayras
Legislation affecting
Arts. 48 and 177 TEEC

Van Duyn v Home Office (1974) C-41/74 was a case of the European Court of Justice concerning the free movement of workers between member states. [1]

Contents

Facts

Van Duyn, a Dutch national, claimed the British Government, through the Home Secretary, infringed TFEU article 45(3) (then TEEC art 48(3)) by denying her an entry permit to work at the Church of Scientology. The Free Movement of Workers Directive 64/221/EC article 3(1) also set out that a public policy provision had to be 'based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned'. The UK had not done anything to expressly implement this element of the Directive. The government had believed Scientology to be harmful to mental health, and discouraged it but did not make it illegal. She sued, citing the Treaty of Rome and Community law, arguing that the Directive should apply to bind the UK. She was not being refused because of 'personal conduct'. Pennycuick VC referred the case to the European Court of Justice. The Home Office argued the provision was not directly effective, because it left the Government the discretion to apply exceptions to free movement.

Judgment

The European Court of Justice held that van Duyn could be denied entry if it was for reasons related to her personal conduct, as outlined in the Directive 64/22/EEC. TEEC article 48 was directly effective, even though the application of the provision was 'subject to judicial control'. Furthermore, the Directive was directly effective against the UK government. First, it would be incompatible with the binding effect of Directives to exclude the possibility of direct effect. Second, the practical efficacy of the Directive would be reduced unless individuals could invoke them before national courts. Third, because the ECJ has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings under TFEU article 267 (then TEEC article 177) on 'acts of the institutions... of the Union' this implied all acts should be directly effective.

9. The second question asks the court to say whether Council Directive 64/221 of February 25, 1964, on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health is directly applicable so as to confer on individuals rights enforceable by them in the courts of a member state.

10. It emerges from the order making the reference that the only provision of the Directive which is relevant is that contained in article 3 (1) which provides:

"Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned."

11. The United Kingdom observes that, since article 189 of the Treaty distinguishes between the effects ascribed to regulations, directives and decisions, it must therefore be presumed that the Council, in issuing a directive rather than making a regulation, must have intended that the directive should have an effect other than that of a regulation and accordingly that the former should not be directly applicable.

12. If, however, by virtue of the provisions of article 189 regulations are directly applicable and, consequently, may by their very nature have direct effects, it does not follow from this that other categories of acts mentioned in that article can never have similar effects. It would be incompatible with the binding effect attributed to a directive by article 189 to exclude, in principle, the possibility that the obligation which it imposes may be invoked by those concerned. In particular, where the community authorities have, by directive, imposed on member states the obligation to pursue a particular course of conduct, the useful effect of such an act would be weakened if individuals were prevented from relying on it before their national courts and if the latter were prevented from taking it into consideration as an element of community law. Article 177 , which empowers national courts to refer to the court questions concerning the validity and interpretation of all acts of the community institutions, without distinction, implies furthermore that these acts may be invoked by individuals in the national courts. It is necessary to examine, in every case, whether the nature, general scheme and wording of the provision in question are capable of having direct effects on the relations between member states and individuals.

13. By providing that measures taken on grounds of public policy shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned, article 3 (1) of Directive 64/221 is intended to limit the discretionary power which national laws generally confer on the authorities responsible for the entry and expulsion of foreign nationals. First, the provision lays down an obligation which is not subject to any exception or condition and which, by its very nature, does not require the intervention of any act on the part either of the institutions of the community or of member states. Secondly, because member states are thereby obliged, in implementing a clause which derogates from one of the fundamental principles of the Treaty in favour of individuals, not to take account of factors extraneous to personal conduct, legal certainty for the persons concerned requires that they should be able to rely on this obligation even though it has been laid down in a legislative act which has no automatic direct effect in its entirety.

Crucially, the ECJ proceeded to permit the UK's derogation, thereby approving (on this occasion) the UK's decision to ban Ms Duyn because Scientology was then deemed by the UK to be harmful and undesirable:

3 . Article 48 of the EEC treaty and Article 3 ( 1 ) of Directive no 64/221 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, in imposing restrictions justified on grounds of public policy, is entitled to take into account as a matter of personal conduct of the individual concerned, the fact that the individual is associated with some body or organization the activities of which the member state considers socially harmful but which are not unlawful in that state, despite the fact that no restriction is placed upon nationals of the said Member State who wish to take similar employment with the same body or organization.

Significance

The main significance of the case is not the decision itself, but the fact that ECJ held that EU directives can have direct effect on an individual. The Court laid down in its judgment that a directive has direct effect when its provisions are unconditional and sufficiently clear and precise and when the EU Member State has not transposed the directive by the deadline. [2] The Court reasoned that if the directive did not have direct effect, then it would lose its relevance. Therefore, directives had to have direct effect.

They changed their reasoning later in Pubblico Ministero v Ratti, but the principle persisted. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Justice</span> Supreme court in the European Union, part of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), 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 uniform application across all EU member states under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Directive (European Union)</span> Legislative act of the European Union

A directive is a legal act of the European Union that requires member states to achieve particular goals without dictating how the member states achieve those goals. A directive's goals have to be made the goals of one or more new or changed national laws by the member states before this legislation applies to individuals residing in the member states. 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.

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.

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.

Direct applicability refers to the fact that EU Regulations require no implementing legislation within individual member states - they take effect as soon as they are published by the European Commission.

<i>R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport</i> UK-Spanish legal case

R v Secretary of State for Transport was a judicial review case taken against the United Kingdom government by a company of Spanish fishermen who claimed that the United Kingdom had breached European Union law by requiring ships to have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the UK. The case produced a number of significant judgements on British constitutional law, and was the first time that courts held that they had power to restrain the application of an Act of Parliament pending trial and ultimately to disapply that Act when it was found to be contrary to EU law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">EFTA Court</span> Supranational tribunal of EFTA states

The EFTA Court 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.

The rule of the shorter term, also called the comparison of terms, is a provision in international copyright treaties. The provision allows that signatory countries can limit the duration of copyright they grant to foreign works under national treatment to no more than the copyright term granted in the country of origin of the work.

European tort law, as a term, is not strictly defined and is used to describe a number of various features concerning tort law in Europe. The concept developed alongside other major historic developments of European integration.

Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) Case 26/62 was a landmark case of the European Court of Justice which established that provisions of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community were capable of creating legal rights which could be enforced by both natural and legal persons before the courts of the Community's member states. This is now called the principle of direct effect. The case is acknowledged as being one of the most important, and possibly the most famous development of European Union law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Primacy of European Union law</span> Legal principle

The primacy of European Union law is a legal principle establishing precedence of European Union law over conflicting national laws of EU member states.

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.

<i>Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville</i>

Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville (1974) Case 8/74 is an EU law case of the European Court of Justice, in which a 'distinctly applicable measure of equivalent effect' to a quantitative restriction of trade in the European Union was held to exist on a Scotch whisky imported from France.

<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>Marshall v Southampton Health Authority</i> 1986 European Union law case

Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (1986) Case 152/84 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.

Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) C-413/99 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of citizens in the European Union.

Brasserie du Pêcheur v Germany and R (Factortame) v SS for Transport (1996) C-46/93 and C-48/93 is a joined EU law case, concerning state liability for breach of the law in the European Union.

References

  1. ↑ Volcansek, Mary L. (1997). Law Above Nations. University Press of Florida. pp. 39–40. ISBN   978-0-8130-1537-8. Archived from the original on 30 April 2024. Retrieved 30 April 2024.
  2. ↑ "The direct effect of European Union law". eur-lex.europa.eu. European Union. Archived from the original on 11 August 2023. Retrieved 21 October 2022.
  3. ↑ "Do unimplemented European Community directives have direct effect – or any other legal effect – in national law? Is the law in this area satisfactory?". Le Petit Juriste. 23 October 2010. Archived from the original on 7 June 2023. Retrieved 21 October 2022. In Van Duyn, the reasoning behind the decision was that, if rights were not enforceable, EC law would lose its effectiveness as national courts could simply ignore the directives. In Ratti, however, the court changed its tack. The reasoning in this case was the estoppel principle: that states should not be able to profit from their own failure to implement a directive. This is the background to what we may consider the orthodox position of directive effectiveness.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.