EU law, national law, European directives, direct effect, private individuals, Member State liability, Court of Justice, EU directives interpretation, internal market, services directive
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 4
Abstract
The Court of Justice of the European Union rules on the direct effect of EU directives in disputes between private individuals and the responsibility of Member States.
Extract
[...] In its decision, the Court responds and reasons in two stages. If on the one hand it confirms the absence of direct horizontal effect of European directives it does not fail to recall the responsibility of the Member State (II). I. The absence of direct horizontal effect of directives If the Court begins by recalling the rules of the direct effect of directives it then examines the limits imposed on the interpretation in conformity with national law A confirmation of the principles governing the direct effect of directives The Court of Justice begins by recalling the fundamental principles governing the invocability of directives. [...]
[...] After confirming this principle, the Court turns its attention to the limits of the interpretation of national law in the light of directives. A reminder of the limit of the national law consistent interpretation After recalling the primacy of EU law in its recital 25, the Court insists in its next point on the principle of interpretation in conformity with national law which follows from it, which obliges the national judge to interpret the internal law in the light of the European directive, as far as possible. [...]
[...] The dispute was subsequently studied before several German judicial instances. After these, Thelen filed an appeal to Revision before a final jurisdiction which refers the case to the CJEU. The prejudicial question raised in the judgment involves several principles of Union law and, as recalled in point 14, this issue is part of a series of decisions concerning the HOAI, don't the interpretation had already been judged incompatible with the directive 2006/123/CE (decision of 4 July 2019, Commission/Germany, confirmed in the ordinance of 6 February 2020). [...]
[...] The absence of direct horizontal effect of directives prevents immediate protection of individual rights, which must wait for a State to modify its legislation, or resort to an action for liability against the State, which can be long and complex. On the other hand, this approach strengthens the liability of the Member State, as it must assume the consequences of its breaches of European Union law. Individuals can thus claim compensation for the damage suffered due to the non-execution of European obligations. This solution finds its foundation in the need to ensure a consistent and predictable application of European law, while respecting the role of national courts and their ability to adapt internal law. [...]
[...] In consequence, Directive 2006/123/CE cannot be invoked by Thelen against Article 7 of the HOAI, even if the latter has been found to be incompatible with the requirements of the directive. However, although directives cannot be invoked directly between individuals, the Court then recalls that this does not exempt Member States from their responsibility. II. La responsabilité de l'État membre pour manquement à ses obligations This second part will first examine the route of liability action against the Member State before analyzing the practical consequences of the Court's solution for European litigants The route of liability action against the Member State The Court of Justice recalls that the absence of direct horizontal effect of directives does not prevent individuals from seeking compensation in the event of a violation of European law by a Member State. [...]
