Francovich v. Italy, [1991] ECR I-5357

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Rebecca, a longtime employee at an artisan goods manufacturer, lost her job when the company declared bankruptcy. The European Union enacted a directive designed to ensure minimum compensation for workers in the event of employer insolvency. The Member State in which Rebecca worked did not transpose this directive into national law. Having received no financial assistance, Rebecca is struggling to make ends meet. She approached her government for help, but officials deny liability, contending no domestic law exists to support her claim. Determined to stand up for her rights, Rebecca seeks legal advice on whether she can seek damages directly from the state for its failure to implement the directive.


Which of the following is the best explanation of the legal principle that enables Rebecca to bring a direct claim for compensation due to the government's failure to implement the directive?

Introduction

State liability for non-implementation of directives constitutes a critical element of the European Union legal framework. Cases C-6 & 9/90 Francovich and Bonifaci v Italian Republic established this principle, holding Member States accountable for damages suffered by individuals due to their failure to transpose directives into national law. This principle ensures the effectiveness of EU law and safeguards individual rights guaranteed under directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) outlined specific conditions for establishing state liability, which require demonstrating a sufficiently serious breach by the Member State.

The Francovich Principle: Genesis and Scope

The Francovich case arose from Italy's failure to implement Directive 80/987/EEC, which aimed to guarantee minimum levels of compensation for employees in the event of employer insolvency. Francovich and Bonifaci, former employees of insolvent companies, were unable to obtain the compensation guaranteed by the Directive due to Italy's omission. The CJEU ruled that Member States are obligated to compensate individuals for losses caused by their failure to implement a directive, provided certain conditions are met.

Conditions for State Liability

The CJEU articulated three conditions for establishing state liability: First, the directive must confer rights upon individuals. Second, the content of those rights must be identifiable from the provisions of the directive. Third, there must be a causal link between the Member State's breach and the damage suffered by the individual. These conditions, known as the Francovich test, became a key element of EU law, ensuring the efficacy of directives and protecting individual rights.

The Evolution of State Liability: Beyond Francovich

The Francovich principle has been further developed through subsequent CJEU case law. In Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany (C-46/93) and Factortame (No 3) (C-48/93), the Court extended the scope of state liability to include breaches of Treaty provisions and other forms of EU law, not just directives. Furthermore, the CJEU clarified that a breach is "sufficiently serious" when the Member State manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion. This clarification provided further guidance on the application of the state liability principle.

Practical Implications of State Liability

The principle of state liability has significant practical implications for individuals and Member States. It provides a powerful legal remedy for individuals whose rights under EU law are infringed due to a Member State’s failure to fulfill its obligations. This mechanism reinforces the effectiveness of EU law by incentivizing Member States to comply with their obligations and transpose directives correctly and timely. The threat of financial liability encourages Member States to prioritize their implementation duties.

State Liability and the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection

The concept of state liability is closely linked to the principle of effective judicial protection, enshrined in Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This principle ensures that individuals have access to effective legal remedies within the EU legal order. State liability provides a concrete mechanism for enforcing this right, enabling individuals to seek redress for damages arising from a Member State’s failure to comply with EU law. This interplay between state liability and effective judicial protection strengthens the rule of law within the EU.

Conclusion

The Francovich judgment represents a significant moment in the development of EU law, establishing the principle of Member State liability for non-implementation of directives. This principle, further refined by subsequent case law such as Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame (No 3), provides an important mechanism for ensuring the effectiveness of EU law and protecting individual rights. The Francovich test, requiring demonstrable rights, identifiable content, and a causal link between the breach and the damage, sets the standard for establishing state liability. This principle not only safeguards individual rights but also strengthens the overall integrity and efficacy of the EU legal order, contributing to the principle of effective judicial protection and supporting the rule of law within the Union. The ongoing development and application of this principle continue to shape the relationship between Member States and EU law.

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