Introduction
The idea of indirect influence, set in Von Colson and Kamann (148/78), asks national courts to read national law according to European Union (EU) directives, even if not directly usable. C-268/06, Impact, makes clearer the reach of this idea, especially concerning its use in situations where national legislation seems to block agreement with a directive. This case looks at the limits of court reading, stating that national courts must think about the whole legal setup to reach a result fitting the directive's aims, as long as it does not break key principles of national law or cause legal confusion. Knowing Impact is key for using EU law in national legal systems, mainly in employment disagreements about working time.
The Facts of C-268/06, Impact
The case started from a disagreement about on-call time for doctors hired by the South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust. The claimants said their on-call time, spent at their workplace, should be seen as working time under the Working Time Directive (2003/88/EC). Existing UK legislation, though, handled such time differently, sorting it as either working time or rest time based on certain rules. This difference between national law and the directive's reading was the main legal issue.
The Preliminary Ruling and the Idea of Broadened Indirect Influence
The referring court asked if national law could limit the reach of the Working Time Directive, thereby restricting the meaning of working time. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) repeated the idea of indirect influence, stressing that national courts must read their national law, as much as possible, in light of the wording and purpose of the directive. The ECJ went further in Impact, making clear that this duty extends even where national legislation seems to block full agreement with the directive. This idea became known as "broadened indirect influence."
Limits on the Broadened Indirect Influence
The ECJ noted that the duty to read national law in agreement with a directive is not endless. Impact clearly says that national courts are not asked to read national law against the clear wording of national legislation, mainly when it leads to criminal punishment. This safeguard stops court overreach and respects the idea of legal certainty. Plus, the ECJ stressed that key principles of the national legal system, including the split of powers and the non-retroactivity of criminal law, must be respected.
Effects on National Legal Systems
Impact strongly affected the use of EU law within Member States. It made solid the idea of broadened indirect influence, giving a strong tool for people looking to rely on the rights given by directives, even when facing seemingly opposite national laws. The ruling stresses the active role of national courts in reaching the aims of EU law, making sure it works within their areas. But, the limits stated in Impact also show the need to respect national legal principles and avoid court legislation.
Use of Impact in Employment Disagreements
Following Impact, national courts have handled using this broadened indirect influence. For example, in cases about the count of holiday pay, national courts have read existing legislation in a way fitting the Working Time Directive, making sure workers get proper pay for leave, even where national law previously had a narrower reading. Likewise, Impact has affected the reading of national rules on rest breaks and working hours, making them closer to the directive's needs.
The Mix of Direct Influence, Indirect Influence, and State Responsibility
C-268/06, Impact, plays a big part in knowing the link between the different ways of making EU law work within national legal systems. While direct influence lets people directly use rights given by regulations and properly used directives, indirect influence and state responsibility fill the gap where direct influence is not available. Impact makes clear the reach of the indirect influence, asking national courts to try for directive agreement even when national law has blocks. Where this is not possible, the idea of state responsibility, as set in Francovich and Bonifaci and Others (C-6/90 and C-9/90), gives another way for help, holding Member States accountable for losses due to their failure to correctly use EU law.
Conclusion
C-268/06, Impact, is a big step in the ECJ's decisions about the use of EU law within Member States. The ruling makes clear the reach and limits of indirect influence, stretching it to situations where national law first seems to block the use of directives. The case stresses the key role of national courts in making sure EU law is followed through reading efforts. But, Impact also shows the need to respect key principles of national law and stop legal confusion. This balance between EU law's top place and national legal control is a main part of the ongoing talk between the ECJ and national legal systems. The ideas set in Impact keep shaping the use of EU law, mainly within the field of employment rights, affecting the reading of national legislation and pushing a steady use of the Working Time Directive across Member States. The ECJ’s way in Impact, along with other cases on direct influence and state responsibility, gives a strong setup for people to seek help and makes sure that EU law reaches its goal of guarding worker rights throughout the Union.
