Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337

Facts

  • Yvonne Van Duyn, a Dutch national, was refused entry into the United Kingdom due to her association with the Church of Scientology, considered by the UK to be socially harmful.
  • She challenged this refusal, relying on her right to free movement of workers under Article 45 TFEU and Council Directive 64/221/EEC, which restricts limitations on free movement to matters of personal conduct.
  • At the time of her application, the relevant directive had not been properly or fully implemented into UK law.

Issues

  1. Whether an individual can rely on a directive in national courts if the Member State has not implemented or has incorrectly implemented it.
  2. Whether the provisions of Directive 64/221/EEC were sufficiently clear, precise, and unconditional to allow direct effect.
  3. Whether refusal of entry on the grounds of association contravened rights under Article 45 TFEU and the directive.

Decision

  • The European Court of Justice held that individuals can invoke provisions of EU directives before national courts if the provisions are clear, precise, and unconditional.
  • The relevant provisions of Directive 64/221/EEC were found to meet these criteria.
  • The Court clarified that such direct effect is vertical, applying only against Member States or emanations of the state, not against private parties.
  • The Court reasoned that denying direct effect for such directives would allow Member States to circumvent their EU obligations by failing to implement directives.

Legal Principles

  • Directives with provisions that are clear, precise, and unconditional may have vertical direct effect, even if not transposed or properly implemented nationally.
  • Vertical direct effect permits individuals to invoke directives against the state or public bodies, but not against private entities.
  • Member States must not benefit from their failure to implement EU directives; effectiveness and supremacy of EU law must be maintained.
  • Legal certainty requires that rights and obligations within directives be sufficiently defined to enable direct effect.
  • The principle established safeguards individual rights and ensures Member State compliance with the EU legal system.

Conclusion

Van Duyn v Home Office confirmed that individuals may rely in national courts on the sufficiently clear, precise, and unconditional provisions of directives against Member States, thereby reinforcing the supremacy and effectiveness of EU law and obligating Member States to uphold their obligations.

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.
No resources available.

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 May 2025. 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.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

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