## 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.


Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337