Jump to content

State liability: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rudjek (talk | contribs)
3,967 edits
No edit summary
references conversion and formatting
Line 1: Line 1:
In [[European Union law]], '''state liability''' arises when a [[List of European Union member states|member state]] of the [[European Union]] breaches EU law, and a citizen suffers a loss as a result. The effect of state liability is that damages may be recoverable in respect of the loss suffered.
In [[European Union law]], '''state liability''' arises when a [[List of European Union member states|member state]] of the [[European Union]] breaches EU law, and a citizen suffers a loss as a result. The effect of state liability is that damages may be recoverable in respect of the loss suffered.


The doctrine was introduced in the case of ''Francovich and Bonifaci v Republic of Italy'' (Cases C-6 and 9/90) [1991] ECR I-5375 {{ref|Francovich}}, where the Italian government failed to adequately implement Directive 80/987, which required the establishment of a scheme to set a minimum compensation for workers in the event of the [[insolvency]] of their employers, the result being that when the claimants became unemployed, they were unable to recover the wages due to them. The [[European Court of Justice]] (ECJ) held that the Italian government had breached its obligations, and was liable to compensate the workers' loss resulting from the breach.
The doctrine was introduced in the case of ''Francovich and Bonifaci v Republic of Italy'' (Cases C-6 and 9/90) [1991] ECR I-5375,<ref>[http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=61990J0006&model=guichett ''Francovich and Bonifaci v Republic of Italy''] (Cases C-6 and 9/90) [1991] ECR I-5375</ref> where the Italian government failed to adequately implement Directive 80/987, which required the establishment of a scheme to set a minimum compensation for workers in the event of the [[insolvency]] of their employers, the result being that when the claimants became unemployed, they were unable to recover the wages due to them. The [[European Court of Justice]] (ECJ) held that the Italian government had breached its obligations, and was liable to compensate the workers' loss resulting from the breach.


The ECJ found that to establish state liability on the basis of the failure the implement a [[European Union directive|directive]], the claimant must prove that the directive conferred specific, identifiable in its wording, rights on him, and that there is a causal link between the state's failure to implement the directive and the loss suffered.
The ECJ found that to establish state liability on the basis of the failure the implement a [[European Union directive|directive]], the claimant must prove that the directive conferred specific, identifiable in its wording, rights on him, and that there is a causal link between the state's failure to implement the directive and the loss suffered.


The doctrine was modified in the cases of ''Brasserie du Pêcheur v Federal Republic of Germany'' and ''R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd'' (Cases C-46 and C-48/93) [1996] ECR I-1029 {{ref|Factortame}}. The ECJ defined the criteria for establishing state liability as:
The doctrine was modified in the cases of ''Brasserie du Pêcheur v Federal Republic of Germany'' and ''R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd'' (Cases C-46 and C-48/93) [1996] ECR I-1029.<ref>[http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=61993J0046&model=guichett ''Brasserie du Pêcheur v Federal Republic of Germany'' and ''R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd''] (Cases C-46 and C-48/93) [1996] ECR I-1029</ref> The ECJ defined the criteria for establishing state liability as:
*The EU law breached must have been intended to confer rights on individuals,
*The EU law breached must have been intended to confer rights on individuals,
*The breach must be sufficiently serious
*The breach must be sufficiently serious
*There must be a direct causal link between the state's breach and the loss suffered.
*There must be a direct causal link between the state's breach and the loss suffered.


The most ambiguous criterion for establishing direct effect is the required level of seriousness. According to the case of ''Dillenkofer and others v Federal Republic of Germany'' (Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94) [1996] ECR I-4845 {{ref|Dillenkofer}}, failure to implement a directive is a sufficiently serious breach. Otherwise, according to ''R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd'' (Case C-5/94) [1996] ECR I-2553 {{ref|Lomas}}, the claimant must prove that the breach is sufficiently serious to justify state liability.
The most ambiguous criterion for establishing direct effect is the required level of seriousness. According to the case of ''Dillenkofer and others v Federal Republic of Germany'' (Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94) [1996] ECR I-4845,<ref>[http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=61994J0178&model=guichett ''Dillenkofer and others v Federal Republic of Germany''] (Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94) [1996] ECR I-4845</ref> failure to implement a directive is a sufficiently serious breach. Otherwise, according to ''R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd'' (Case C-5/94) [1996] ECR I-2553,<ref>[http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=61994J0005&model=guichett ''R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd''] (Case C-5/94) [1996] ECR I-2553</ref> the claimant must prove that the breach is sufficiently serious to justify state liability.


== See also ==
== See also ==
Line 18: Line 18:


== Cases ==
== Cases ==
<div class="references-small">
* {{note|Francovich}} [http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=61990J0006&model=guichett ''Francovich and Bonifaci v Republic of Italy''] (Cases C-6 and 9/90) [1991] ECR I-5375
<references />
* {{note|Factortame}} [http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=61993J0046&model=guichett ''Brasserie du Pêcheur v Federal Republic of Germany'' and ''R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd''] (Cases C-46 and C-48/93) [1996] ECR I-1029
</div>
* {{note|Dillenkofer}} [http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=61994J0178&model=guichett ''Dillenkofer and others v Federal Republic of Germany''] (Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94) [1996] ECR I-4845
* {{note|Lomas}} [http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=61994J0005&model=guichett ''R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd''] (Case C-5/94) [1996] ECR I-2553


[[Category:European Union law]]
[[Category:European Union law]]

Revision as of 12:10, 3 June 2006

In European Union law, state liability arises when a member state of the European Union breaches EU law, and a citizen suffers a loss as a result. The effect of state liability is that damages may be recoverable in respect of the loss suffered.

The doctrine was introduced in the case of Francovich and Bonifaci v Republic of Italy (Cases C-6 and 9/90) [1991] ECR I-5375,[1] where the Italian government failed to adequately implement Directive 80/987, which required the establishment of a scheme to set a minimum compensation for workers in the event of the insolvency of their employers, the result being that when the claimants became unemployed, they were unable to recover the wages due to them. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that the Italian government had breached its obligations, and was liable to compensate the workers' loss resulting from the breach.

The ECJ found that to establish state liability on the basis of the failure the implement a directive, the claimant must prove that the directive conferred specific, identifiable in its wording, rights on him, and that there is a causal link between the state's failure to implement the directive and the loss suffered.

The doctrine was modified in the cases of Brasserie du Pêcheur v Federal Republic of Germany and R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd (Cases C-46 and C-48/93) [1996] ECR I-1029.[2] The ECJ defined the criteria for establishing state liability as:

  • The EU law breached must have been intended to confer rights on individuals,
  • The breach must be sufficiently serious
  • There must be a direct causal link between the state's breach and the loss suffered.

The most ambiguous criterion for establishing direct effect is the required level of seriousness. According to the case of Dillenkofer and others v Federal Republic of Germany (Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94) [1996] ECR I-4845,[3] failure to implement a directive is a sufficiently serious breach. Otherwise, according to R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd (Case C-5/94) [1996] ECR I-2553,[4] the claimant must prove that the breach is sufficiently serious to justify state liability.

See also

Cases

  1. ^ Francovich and Bonifaci v Republic of Italy (Cases C-6 and 9/90) [1991] ECR I-5375
  2. ^ Brasserie du Pêcheur v Federal Republic of Germany and R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd (Cases C-46 and C-48/93) [1996] ECR I-1029
  3. ^ Dillenkofer and others v Federal Republic of Germany (Cases C-178, 179, 188, 189 and 190/94) [1996] ECR I-4845
  4. ^ R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd (Case C-5/94) [1996] ECR I-2553
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_liability&oldid=56651465"