## Facts

- The case concerned the United Kingdom's implementation of Council Directive 90/388/EEC regarding competition in telecommunications services markets.
- British Telecommunications plc alleged that the UK government incorrectly implemented the directive, resulting in financial loss.
- The European Court of Justice (ECJ) was asked to determine whether the UK was liable for incorrect implementation, with particular attention to the clarity of the directive’s provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether the incorrect implementation of Directive 90/388/EEC by the UK gave rise to liability for damages to individuals.
2. Whether the clarity and precision of a directive are determinative in establishing a sufficiently serious breach for the purposes of Member State liability under EU law.

## Decision

- The ECJ found that, while unclear directives do not preclude state liability altogether, ambiguity in a directive raises the threshold for establishing a sufficiently serious breach.
- The Court held that the relevant provisions of Directive 90/388/EEC were not sufficiently clear in the respects pleaded by British Telecommunications plc.
- As a result, the UK's breach was not found to be sufficiently serious to trigger state liability under EU law in this instance.

## Legal Principles

- State liability for breaches of EU law arises when a Member State fails to fulfill obligations under EU treaties, following principles from Francovich and Brasserie du Pêcheur.
- The clarity and precision of the rule breached, particularly the terms of a directive, are key factors in assessing whether the breach is sufficiently serious to incur liability.
- A lack of clarity makes it more difficult for individuals to succeed in a claim, as Member States cannot be easily held liable where implementation was reasonable in light of the directive’s ambiguity.

## Conclusion

R v HM Treasury, ex parte British Telecommunications plc clarified that while Member States may be liable for breaches of EU law, such liability depends on the clarity of the directive; ambiguous provisions make it more difficult to establish a sufficiently serious breach, thereby raising the bar for successful damages claims against states under EU law.

R v HM Treasury, ex parte British Telecommunications plc (Case C-392/93) [1996] ECR I-1631