## Facts

- Ms. Faccini Dori entered into a contract for an English language course with Recreb Srl at Milan Central Station.
- She attempted to cancel the contract, invoking rights under Council Directive 85/577/EEC related to contracts negotiated away from business premises.
- The Directive had not yet been implemented into Italian law by the time of the dispute.
- The question arose whether Ms. Faccini Dori could rely directly on the Directive’s provisions against Recreb Srl, a private company.
- The matter was referred to the European Court of Justice for interpretation.

## Issues

1. Whether the provisions of an unimplemented directive (Council Directive 85/577/EEC) could be directly enforced by an individual against another private party (horizontal direct effect).
2. Whether national courts are required to interpret national law in conformity with an unimplemented directive.
3. Whether individuals have alternative remedies, such as State liability, for damage due to a Member State’s failure to implement a directive.

## Decision

- The ECJ held that directives do not possess horizontal direct effect and cannot be directly invoked by individuals against private parties.
- The Court reaffirmed that directives are binding only as to the Member States, not private individuals, and granting horizontal direct effect would blur the distinction between directives and regulations.
- The ECJ emphasized legal certainty, reasoning that private parties should not be required to know or interpret unimplemented directives.
- National courts must, as far as possible, interpret national legislation in conformity with the purpose and wording of the applicable directive (duty of consistent interpretation).
- The Court confirmed that individuals may claim damages from Member States under the principle of State liability if failure to implement the directive has caused them loss.

## Legal Principles

- Directives impose obligations only on Member States; they do not generally have horizontal direct effect.
- Granting horizontal direct effect to directives would undermine the legal distinction between directives and regulations.
- Legal certainty requires that private parties’ rights and obligations be ascertainable from national law.
- The duty of consistent interpretation obliges national courts to interpret their law in line with the objectives of unimplemented directives where possible.
- State liability allows individuals to obtain redress for harm suffered due to a Member State's failure to implement a directive, provided certain conditions are met.

## Conclusion

The Faccini Dori judgment reaffirmed that directives cannot be relied upon in disputes between individuals, maintaining the distinction between directives and other EU legislative instruments. However, the ECJ’s confirmation of consistent interpretation and State liability mechanisms ensures that individuals retain avenues for enforcing directive-based rights despite the lack of horizontal direct effect.

Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl (Case C-91/92) [1994] ECR I-3325