Introduction
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment in Wells v. Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions ([2004] ECR I-723) established a significant precedent regarding the direct effect of European Union (EU) directives. This case explained the concept of “triangular direct effect,” which holds Member States accountable for their failure to implement directives by imposing obligations on individuals through the interpretation of national law in conformity with EU law. The principle stems from the established doctrines of direct effect and state liability, ensuring the effectiveness of EU law within Member States. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which individuals can rely on a directive against another individual, even in the absence of its proper implementation by the Member State. This requires a sufficiently serious breach by the Member State and a causal link between the breach and the damage suffered by the individual.
The Facts of Wells
Mrs. Wells challenged the legality of opencast coal mining operations authorized by the UK authorities, arguing they were inconsistent with Directive 80/68/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. The UK had failed to fully transpose the Directive into national law. The question before the ECJ was whether Mrs. Wells could rely on the Directive against a private company operating the mine, even though the Directive was not horizontally directly effective.
Triangular Direct Effect: Imposing Obligations on Individuals
The ECJ held that although directives cannot generally be invoked horizontally against individuals, a Member State's failure to implement a directive can give rise to obligations for individuals in certain circumstances. This occurs when the interpretation of national law, in light of the directive, imposes obligations on private parties to protect the rights of other individuals. The Court reasoned that the principle of state liability, established in Francovich and Others ([1991] ECR I-5357), requires Member States to compensate individuals for losses caused by their failure to implement or correctly apply EU law. This principle applies even when the non-implemented directive is aimed at regulating the conduct of individuals. Thus, in Wells, the UK’s failure to implement the Directive created a situation where a private company could indirectly be bound by its provisions through the interpretation of UK planning law in accordance with the Directive.
The Criteria for Triangular Direct Effect
The Wells judgment clarified that invoking a directive against an individual based on the State's failure to implement it is not automatically permissible. The conditions for state liability, as established in Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany and R v Secretary of State for the Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd ([1996] ECR I-1029), must be met. These conditions are: 1) the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals; 2) the breach must be sufficiently serious; and 3) there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the State's obligation and the damage suffered by the individuals.
Implications of Wells for EU Law
The concept of triangular direct effect increases the effectiveness of EU law by offering another avenue for individuals to enforce their rights derived from directives. It prevents Member States from benefiting from their own failure to implement EU law. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of the principle of consistent interpretation, requiring national courts to interpret national law, as far as possible, in conformity with EU law.
Distinguishing Triangular Direct Effect from Horizontal Direct Effect
It is important to distinguish triangular direct effect from horizontal direct effect. Directives, unlike regulations, are not generally horizontally directly effective, meaning they cannot create obligations between private individuals. Triangular direct effect does not change this fundamental principle. Instead, it operates indirectly, using the State’s obligation to implement directives as the basis for imposing obligations on individuals via the interpretation of national law. This ensures that the objectives of the Directive are achieved, even in the absence of its full transposition into national law, by obliging national courts to interpret domestic legislation in its light. The obligation thus falls on the individual by virtue of national law, interpreted in conformity with the Directive, and not by the Directive itself.
Conclusion
The ECJ's decision in Wells v. Secretary of State represents a significant development in the jurisprudence of direct effect. The concept of triangular direct effect provides a key mechanism to ensure the effectiveness of EU directives, even when Member States fail to implement them correctly. By requiring national courts to interpret national law in light of directives, the ECJ has strengthened the protection of individual rights stemming from EU law. This case demonstrates the ECJ’s commitment to upholding the principle of effective judicial protection for individuals seeking to rely on EU law within the national legal order. This strengthens the fundamental principle of EU law supremacy and the duty of Member States to ensure its effective application. The specific requirements for demonstrating a sufficiently serious breach and establishing a causal link, as set forth in Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, remain important for individuals seeking to invoke this principle. Consequently, Wells provides a powerful tool for individuals to secure their rights under EU law while simultaneously holding Member States accountable for their treaty obligations.
