Facts
- Mrs. Wells challenged the legality of opencast coal mining operations authorized by UK authorities, claiming the operations were inconsistent with Directive 80/68/EEC concerning the assessment of environmental effects of certain projects.
- The UK had not fully transposed the Directive into national law.
- The central question before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was whether Mrs. Wells could rely on the Directive against a private company operating the mine, given that directives lack horizontal direct effect.
Issues
- Whether an individual (Mrs. Wells) could invoke the provisions of an EU directive against another private party due to the State’s failure to properly implement the directive.
- Whether the concept of “triangular direct effect” could indirectly impose obligations on individuals through the interpretation of national law in conformity with EU directives.
- What criteria must be met for a Member State's failure to implement a directive to give rise to individual rights enforceable against other individuals via national law.
Decision
- The ECJ held that, while directives are not generally horizontally directly effective, a Member State’s failure to implement a directive may lead to obligations on individuals in certain circumstances.
- The Court confirmed that such obligations arise when national law, interpreted in light of the directive, imposes requirements on private parties to protect the rights of individuals.
- The ECJ clarified that the conditions established for state liability, namely a sufficiently serious breach, the conferral of individual rights, and a direct causal link between breach and damage, must be satisfied.
- The Court highlighted that the imposition of obligations on individuals occurs via national law as interpreted, and not directly by the directive itself.
Legal Principles
- EU directives cannot generally create obligations between private parties (i.e., lack horizontal direct effect).
- Triangular direct effect allows individuals to rely on directives against private parties, but only indirectly, through the Member State's obligation to implement EU law and national courts' duty of consistent interpretation.
- The conditions for state liability—established in Francovich and Others [1991] ECR I-5357 and Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany and Factortame Ltd [1996] ECR I-1029—must be met: the rule infringed must confer rights on individuals; there must be a sufficiently serious breach; and a direct causal link between breach and damage.
- The doctrine prevents Member States from benefiting from their failure to implement EU law.
- The obligation imposed on individuals arises from national law interpreted to conform with EU directives, not directly from the directive.
Conclusion
The ECJ’s judgment in Wells established that, while EU directives lack horizontal direct effect, a Member State’s failure to implement a directive may lead, under specific conditions, to obligations for individuals via the interpretation of national law, reinforcing the effectiveness and supremacy of EU law and the right of individuals to effective judicial protection.
