Introduction
State liability under European Union law represents a critical mechanism for ensuring member states' compliance with their obligations. Factortame (No. 3) and Brasserie de Pêcheur, joined cases heard by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1996, established the definitive criteria for such liability. These criteria require a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals, a direct causal link between the breach and the damage suffered, and the existence of a right intended to be protected by the infringed rule. This judgment significantly impacted the legal field, offering individuals a powerful tool against unlawful state action. Understanding these criteria is fundamental to appreciating the full scope of EU law's enforcement mechanisms.
The Principle of State Liability: Genesis and Development
The concept of State liability did not originate with Factortame (No. 3) and Brasserie de Pêcheur. Prior ECJ jurisprudence, notably Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy [1991] ECR I-5357, laid the groundwork by establishing State liability for failure to implement directives. However, these earlier cases dealt with a specific scenario. Factortame (No. 3) and Brasserie de Pêcheur broadened the principle to include any breach of EU law, whether through legislative, administrative, or judicial action. This expansion represented a substantial development in EU law, clarifying the scope of individual redress against member states.
The Factortame Saga: A Trigger for Change
The Factortame litigation itself, spanning several cases, concerned the UK's Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which imposed discriminatory nationality requirements on fishing vessel registration. The ECJ found these requirements incompatible with EU law on freedom of establishment. The subsequent Factortame (No. 3) case addressed the question of compensation for losses incurred due to the UK's unlawful legislation. This specific context provided an important test case for clarifying the broader principles of State liability.
The Brasserie de Pêcheur Case: Expanding the Scope
Parallel to Factortame, Brasserie de Pêcheur involved a French brewery claiming compensation from Germany for losses incurred due to Germany's beer purity laws, which the ECJ had previously ruled violated EU law. The joining of these cases allowed the ECJ to address diverse factual scenarios, demonstrating the general applicability of the State liability principle.
The Three-Pronged Test: Defining State Liability
The ECJ in Factortame (No. 3) and Brasserie de Pêcheur articulated a three-pronged test for establishing State liability. Firstly, the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals. Secondly, the breach must be sufficiently serious. This 'sufficiently serious' threshold requires consideration of factors such as the clarity and precision of the rule breached, the measure of discretion left to the Member State by the rule, whether the infringement and the damage caused was intentional or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable, the position taken by a Community institution, and whether the Member State contravened a prior ECJ decision. Thirdly, there must be a direct causal link between the State's breach and the damage sustained by the individual. These three criteria provide a structured framework for assessing claims of State liability. They represent a significant contribution to the clarity and predictability of EU law.
Implications and Significance of the Judgment
The Factortame (No. 3) and Brasserie de Pêcheur judgment has had major implications for the development of EU law. It solidified the principle of State liability as a key enforcement mechanism, ensuring member states' accountability for breaches of EU law. This judgment strengthened the effectiveness of EU law by providing a direct avenue for redress for individuals affected by unlawful state action. This upholds the principle of the supremacy of EU law and contributes to the creation of a more unified and effective legal order within the European Union.
Conclusion
Factortame (No. 3)/Brasserie de Pêcheur [1996] ECR I-1029 represents a landmark judgment in EU law. It clarified and consolidated the principle of State liability, establishing a clear three-pronged test for its application. This framework, including the requirement of a right-conferring rule, a sufficiently serious breach, and a direct causal link, provides a robust mechanism for holding member states accountable for their actions. The judgment has had a lasting impact on the enforcement of EU law, strengthening individual rights and encouraging greater compliance by member states. This case remains a central point of reference for understanding the interplay between national law and the supremacy of EU law, illustrating the ECJ's important role in ensuring the effective functioning of the European legal order. This decision remains a powerful legal instrument for individuals seeking redress against unlawful state action and emphasizes the importance of the principles established in Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy.
