Case C360/11 – Commission v Spain Advocates opinion (Jääskinen) – VAT cut on medical items not enacted properly thought to be unlawful
Case C537/03 Candolin and Others [2005] ECR I-5745 and Case C-356/05Farrell [2007] ECR I-3067, that the Court endeavours to ensure special protection for the passengers of vehicles involved in accidents.

The Doctrine of Indirect EffectWhere a Directive has not been implemented by Member State or has been inadequately implemented an individual can take action against another individual by using the concept of “indirect effect” Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfahlen [1984] ECJ
Article 5 EC requires Member States to "take all appropriate measures" to ensure fulfilment of Community obligations. And this means that courts must interpret national law so as to ensure the objectives of Directive are achieved. This requires an effective remedy that has a deterrent effect and is adequate in relation to the damage sustained. A Directive cannot of itself impose obligations on private partiesMarleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA [1990] ECJ
Therefore, national courts must as far as possible interpret national law in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the Directive. This obligation applies whether the national provisions in question were adopted before or after the Directive; national courts were 'required' to interpret domestic law in such a way as to ensure that the objectives of the Directive were achieved. So, courts must do everything possible to interpret domestic law to comply with Community law. State Liability when there is no domestic law on a matter to which a Directive relates or domestic law is totally contrary to EC lawFrancovich v Italy [1991] ECJ
Sometimes referred to as the 'Francovich Doctrine' or the 'Francovich Principle'. Francovich focused on the primary liability of Member State for a failure to fulfil a Community obligation. Although the Directive was not sufficiently clear and precise to be directly effective against the State, Italy was under an obligation to implement it under Article 5 EC. And since Italy had failed to do so, it was under a duty to compensate individuals for damage suffered as a result of its failure if it is possible to identify the content of these rights from the Directive; and there is a causal link between the State's failure to implement the Directive and the damage suffered by the individual.
Therefore the state was liable to compensate for loss as a result of the state’s failure to implement an EU directive within the required time limit. Faccini Dori v Recreb [1995] ECJ
The Francovich principle was used by Ms Dori who relied on a Council Directive (that had not become part of Italian law) to withdraw from an English language course. The Directive allowed consumers to cancel contracts within seven days if the contract had been made away from business premises - in this case at railway station. Mss Dori could not rely on the Directive against a private body but that she should be able to gain compensation from the Italian state.

Directives produce vertical direct effects if it is clear, precise and unconditional
Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECJ
This was the first case to be referred to the European Court of Justice by an English court. The Home Office refused Miss Van Duyn leave to enter the UK on the grounds of her undesirability. She was a Dutch national and a practising Scientologist.
Miss Van Duyn attempted to rely on article 48 of the Treaty, and Art 3 of Directive 64/221, which allowed free movement of workers in the EU.

It was held that the useful effect of directives would be weakened if individuals were prevented from relying on them before national courts.

Since the directive laid down an obligation, which was not subject to any exception or condition, and by its nature did not require intervention on the part of the Community or Member State, it was to be regarded as directly effective conferring enforceable individual rights, which national courts must protect. However, amember state could refuse leave to enter its territory on the ground of association with an organisation whose activities were deemed to be contrary to the public good. It was immaterial that the organisation is not actually unlawful and that nationals of member state are permitted to work for it. So, Miss Van Duyn was refused entry.
An unimplemented Directive can only become effective after the date for implementation has past
Publico Ministerio v Ratti [1979] ECJ
A Directive must be clear, precise and unconditional. A Directive can only become directly effective after time limit for its implementation has passed. Directives have to be implemented by the state within the timescale laid down in the Directive An individual cannot invoke a Directive against another individual – it cannot have horizontal direct effect

employees of local government bodies (Fratelli Constanzo SpA v. Commune di Milano,Case C-103/88, [1989])
While in NUT v St. Mary’s12 the Court of Appeal concludes that not all of the criteria need to be met, thus a voluntary body may be an emanation of the state even if they do not have any special powers. [1997] 3 C.M.L.R.
In Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd (1989), the House of lords determined that a Statutory Instrument (a form of UK legislation created by a body authorised by Parliament - such as a Government Minister - to legislate in delegated areas) which was passed specifically to implement an EC directive into UK law would be subject to the Von Colson principle and may therefore grant rights actionable against private individuals.
The ECJ first articulated its stance regarding horizontal direct effect for Directives in Marshall v Southhampton and South West Area Health Authority No. 1 (1986). In this case, the court refused to extend the principle it had established in Van Duyn v Home Office in order to provide for horizontal direct effect, although it did accept that vertical direct effect could exist against state-run bodies (or 'emanations of the state'), as well as the central organs of state. However, there were at least two problems with the court's reasoning. First, the ECJ cited a number of objections to horizontal direct effect in the case of Directives that are either no longer valid or apply equally to vertical direct (which the court had already recognized). Second, some of its arguments appeared to apply also to horizontal direct effect in the case of Regulations (which the court also had already recognized). For example, the court suggested that because Directives were not publicly available, it would be unjust to expect private parties to organize their affairs according to laws of which they were unaware. However, Art. 254 now imposes an obligation to publish all Directives; this argument is therefore no longer valid. It also argued that the discretion accorded member states in implementing Directives made it unlikely that recognition of horizontal direct effect could ever (by virtue of Van Duyn v Home Office) apply; but if so, it would be difficult to see how vertical direct effect managed to escape this objection.
The Von Colson principle allows an individual to sue for violation of rights granted by an EC Directive in certain circumstances, even where that Directive would not normally have a direct effect. The principle cannot be effective where giving it effect would render criminal liability. In cases where it is effective however, it allows for remedies to injustice where such remedies would otherwise be unavailable.
Article 288 – a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved, upon each member state to which it is addressed, but shall leave the national authorities the choice of form and methods

Van Duyn – Directives are binding and will be more effectively enforced if individuals can rely on them and Art 267 allows for courts refer questions concerning and EU measure

Ratti – If implemented correctly the person would have been able to rely on it.

C – 441/99, C – 346/97

C – 316/93 – General principle that the direct effect of directive operates from the deadline specified for implementation of the directive.

C – 129/96 – not obliged to implement a directive before the period for its transposition has expired, they must, during that period, refrain from adopting any measures liable to compromise seriously the result of the prescribed directive
C – 62/00 Marks and Spencer plc v commissioners of state and custom – Even after a member state implemented a directive correctly into national law, an individual could continue to rely directly on the provisions of the directive against the state so long as it was not being properly applied in practice. C – 91/92 Dori v Recreb Srl – confirmed the marshall position 10 years later.

c- 343/98, c -258/96 – broad interpretation of Foster.

Clear all authorities have an obligation within the limits of their power to apply provisions of a directive, and refrain from applying provisions of national law which conflict with them, something which has been referred to as “administrative direct effect”.

A body which might be regarded in some way as connected with the state is held responsible for a failing of the state itself, even though it had no control over the relevant event.

C – 316/93 Vaneetveld Jacobs AG – “notwithstanding that that might be in direct competition with private sector undertakings against which the same directives are not enforceable”.

The ECJ’s thesis is in effect that the price to be paid by for example nationalised industry for whatever powers it has been given by member states is relevant to that industry should be subject to whatever duties flow from a directive even though there is no necessary connection between those powers and anything to do with EU law, and even though the releveant undertaking has no more control of power over the implementation of the directive than any private individual

C – 201/02 The queen on the application of Delena Wells v Secretary of state for ransport, local government and the regions –Wells wanted to get rid of planning consent which was given as didn’t meet up with directive on inspecting property beforehand. Paragraph 57 – mere adverse repercussions on the rights of third parties even if the repercussions are certain, do not justify preventing and individual from invoking the provisions of a directive against the member states concerned. (inverse direct effect no problem)

Indirect effect. Van colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
Art 4(3) and an aspect of the requirement of full effectiveness of EC law – C 160/01 Mauhow indirect affect derives it's power.