Marshall v S'hampton Health, [1986] ECR 723

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Harriet is employed by Mapleton Water Services, a company that is majority-owned by the local municipal government. She was forced to retire at the age of 60 while male employees in a similar role can continue working until 65. Harriet contends that this policy violates a European Union directive requiring equal treatment regardless of gender, even though the national parliament has not fully implemented the directive. Mapleton Water Services insists that it is not bound by the directive, citing its structure as a private corporation. However, Harriet believes that the municipal government’s controlling interest makes Mapleton Water Services an emanation of the state.


Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding Harriet’s ability to rely on the directive under EU law?

Introduction

The principle of direct effect in European Union law allows individuals to rely on provisions of EU law before national courts. This principle, established in the landmark case of Van Gend en Loos, is important for ensuring the effectiveness and uniformity of EU law within member states. Direct effect operates under specific conditions, requiring the provision to be clear, precise, and unconditional. The case of Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority significantly clarified the scope of direct effect concerning directives, establishing the important distinction between vertical and horizontal direct effect. This case holds that directives, unlike regulations and treaty articles, possess only vertical direct effect.

The Facts of Marshall

Helen Marshall, employed by the Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority, was dismissed at the age of 62, while male employees could work until 65. She argued that this constituted discrimination based on sex, contrary to Directive 76/207/EEC on equal treatment. The key question before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerned whether Ms. Marshall could rely on the directive against her employer, a public health authority.

Vertical Direct Effect Explained

The ECJ held that Ms. Marshall could rely on the directive against her employer. This was because the health authority was an "emanation of the state," establishing the principle of vertical direct effect for directives. Vertical direct effect permits individuals to invoke a directive against the state or a public body. The rationale behind this is that member states are obligated to implement directives and should not benefit from their failure to do so. The Court reasoned that allowing individuals to invoke directives against the state would encourage proper implementation.

Horizontal Direct Effect: Why Not for Directives?

Importantly, the ECJ clarified that directives lack horizontal direct effect. This means an individual cannot invoke a directive against another individual or a private company. The Court based this distinction on the nature of directives. Unlike regulations, which are directly applicable in all member states, directives require implementation by member states. Imposing obligations on individuals based on unimplemented directives would undermine this implementation process and blur the distinction between regulations and directives. The Court found in Marshall that it would be unfair to impose such obligations on private entities without the proper legislation being put in place by the state.

The Rationale for the Distinction

The ECJ's reasoning in Marshall stems from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which distinguishes between regulations and directives. Article 288 TFEU provides that a regulation "shall have general application" and "shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States." Conversely, a directive "shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods." This difference in legal nature justifies the distinction in direct effect.

Subsequent Case Law and Indirect Effect

The Marshall ruling has been strengthened and clarified by subsequent ECJ judgments, such as the case v British Gas plc. This case provided criteria for determining what constitutes an "emanation of the state," expanding the scope of vertical direct effect. While horizontal direct effect remains unavailable for directives, the ECJ has developed the principle of indirect effect, as established in Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen. This principle obliges national courts to interpret national law, as far as possible, in conformity with EU directives, even in horizontal disputes. This offers an alternative avenue for individuals seeking redress in cases involving private parties where the state has failed to correctly implement a directive.

Conclusion

The Marshall case stands as a key decision in EU law, clarifying the scope of direct effect for directives. The distinction between vertical and horizontal direct effect is fundamental to understanding the relationship between EU law and national law. While directives are vertically directly effective against the state, their lack of horizontal direct effect highlights the importance of proper implementation by member states. The development of indirect effect, although a separate principle, offers an additional mechanism to ensure the effectiveness of EU law in horizontal situations, further highlighting the continuing development of the jurisprudence surrounding the direct effect of directives. The Marshall ruling, alongside subsequent cases, reaffirms the essential role of the ECJ in ensuring the uniform application and effectiveness of EU law within the diverse legal systems of the member states. This principle of direct effect, refined and clarified through judicial interpretation, remains a basis of the EU’s legal order.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal