Facts
- The case concerned Polish legislation implementing an EU directive on protecting employees when their employer becomes insolvent.
- Poland used a “trigger” device: certain directive provisions would apply only after a national Guarantee Fund was set up.
- Mr Daniel Adam Popławski argued that the lack of a functioning Fund prevented him from invoking rights conferred by the directive before national courts.
- The referring Polish court asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) whether such a trigger mechanism was compatible with the doctrine of direct effect.
Issues
- Does EU law allow a member state to condition the direct effect of a directive on the subsequent fulfilment of national measures (“trigger model”)?
- If such a mechanism is permissible, must the national measures establishing the trigger meet particular standards of clarity and precision?
- Did the Polish provisions on the Guarantee Fund satisfy those standards?
Decision
- The CJEU accepted that a trigger mechanism is not automatically precluded by EU law.
- However, the national measure activating direct effect must be sufficiently clear and precise to let individuals identify when EU rights are available.
- The Polish provisions failed this test: they did not define with adequate certainty when the Guarantee Fund would be created, leaving individuals unable to determine their rights.
- Consequently, Poland’s trigger mechanism undermined the effectiveness and uniform application of the directive and was incompatible with the principle of direct effect.
Legal Principles
- Direct effect permits individuals to rely on EU provisions that are clear, precise and unconditional before national courts.
- A member state may interpose national implementing conditions only if those conditions themselves are clear, precise and do not frustrate the objectives of EU law.
- National courts must disapply domestic provisions that impede the practical effectiveness of EU rights.
- The effectiveness and uniformity of EU law take precedence over domestic procedural or institutional arrangements that hinder individual enforcement.
Conclusion
The Court ruled that while a “trigger model” can theoretically coexist with direct effect, the Polish legislation’s indeterminate conditions for establishing the Guarantee Fund rendered the directive’s rights unenforceable. Because the trigger lacked sufficient clarity and precision, it violated the requirement that EU law be effective and uniformly applied. National courts must therefore disregard such obstructive domestic provisions.