Introduction
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment in Van Gend en Loos established the principle of direct effect, a key part of European Union law. Direct effect allows individuals to directly invoke provisions of EU law before national courts, even in the absence of implementing national legislation. This principle requires that the relevant provision be clear, precise, and unconditional. The ECJ's reasoning in this case significantly altered the relationship between EU law and national law, affirming the supremacy and direct applicability of certain EU legal provisions within Member States. This judgment provides the legal basis for individuals to challenge national measures that are incompatible with directly effective EU law.
The Facts of the Case
Van Gend en Loos, a Dutch transport company, imported urea-formaldehyde from West Germany into the Netherlands. Dutch customs authorities imposed a tariff on this import, which Van Gend en Loos argued violated Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 30 TFEU), which prohibited Member States from increasing customs duties between themselves. The central question before the ECJ was whether Article 12 could be invoked by individuals before a national court.
Establishing Direct Effect
The ECJ held that Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome was directly effective, meaning that individuals could rely on it directly before national courts. The Court reasoned that the European Economic Community (EEC), the precursor to the European Union, constituted a new legal order of international law, one in which Member States had limited their sovereign rights and conferred rights upon individuals. These rights, when sufficiently clear and precise, could be enforced by individuals before national courts.
Criteria for Direct Effect
The ECJ laid out specific criteria for a provision of EU law to be directly effective. The provision must be:
- Clear: The obligation imposed by the provision must be unambiguous and easily understood.
- Precise: The provision must leave no discretion to Member States regarding its implementation.
- Unconditional: The provision’s application must not be dependent on further action by EU institutions or Member States.
Impact on National Law
The Van Gend en Loos judgment established the supremacy of EU law over conflicting national law. If a national law conflicts with a directly effective provision of EU law, the national law must be disapplied. This principle ensures the uniform application of EU law across all Member States.
Subsequent Developments and Significance
The principle of direct effect has been expanded upon and refined in subsequent ECJ case law, notably in cases such as Costa v ENEL (Case 6/64) and Defrenne v SABENA (Case 43/75). These cases established the direct effect of Treaty provisions in horizontal situations, meaning that individuals can invoke them against other individuals or private companies, and the direct effect of regulations and decisions respectively. Van Gend en Loos remains a landmark judgment, as it established the fundamental principle that EU law can create rights for individuals which are enforceable before national courts, thereby significantly strengthening the effectiveness of EU law. This has provided citizens with a powerful tool to ensure their rights under EU law are protected, contributing to the development of a more integrated and legally robust European Union.
Vertical and Horizontal Direct Effect
Following Van Gend en Loos, the ECJ clarified that direct effect can operate both vertically and horizontally. Vertical direct effect refers to the ability of individuals to invoke EU law against the state or a state emanation. Horizontal direct effect, established in Defrenne v SABENA, refers to the ability of individuals to invoke EU law against another individual or private entity. This distinction is important for understanding the full scope and application of direct effect within the EU legal order. While Treaty articles can have both vertical and horizontal direct effect, regulations are generally considered to have both, and directives primarily have vertical direct effect.
Limitations of Direct Effect
Despite its significance, the principle of direct effect is not without limitations. For instance, directives, another form of EU law, generally only have vertical direct effect, as per the ECJ’s judgment in Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Case 152/84). This means that individuals can only rely on a directive against the state, not against another individual or private entity. Furthermore, even if a provision meets the criteria for direct effect, its application may be limited by doctrines such as state liability, which provides redress for breaches of EU law by Member States.
Examples of Direct Effect
The principle of direct effect has been applied in a wide range of cases. For example, in Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy (Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90) the ECJ ruled that individuals could claim compensation from the Italian state for its failure to implement a directive protecting employee rights. This shows the practical impact of direct effect, providing individuals with a tangible means to enforce their EU law rights. Another example can be seen in cases related to the free movement of goods, where individuals and businesses can rely on Article 30 TFEU to challenge national measures that restrict imports or exports.
Conclusion
The Van Gend en Loos judgment fundamentally reshaped the relationship between EU law and national law. By establishing the principle of direct effect, the ECJ enabled individuals to enforce their EU law rights before national courts, contributing to the effective functioning of the EU legal order. The criteria for direct effect—clarity, precision, and unconditionality—remain essential for determining whether a provision of EU law can be directly invoked. The subsequent development of vertical and horizontal direct effect further expanded the scope of this principle, enabling individuals to challenge both state action and private actions that are incompatible with EU law. The judgment in Van Gend en Loos remains a key part of EU law, shaping the legal structure of the European Union and affirming the direct impact of EU law on the lives of its citizens. The principle of direct effect continues to be an essential element in ensuring the uniform application and efficacy of EU law across all Member States, strengthening the overall legal structure of the European Union.
