European Union Law( EU Law) - A sufficiently significant violation is a requirement for state liability
According to Brasserie; Factortame III (1996), the second condition—a breach that is "sufficiently serious"—is determined by whether the Member State "manifestly and severely violated the limits on its discretion." A breach will be automatically regarded as significant in two circumstances. The first scenario is when a Member State refuses to implement a Directive by taking any action. "Failure to take any step to transpose a directive in order to accomplish the effect it prescribes within the period fixed down for that purpose constitutes per se a serious breach of EU law," the Court declared (emphasis added) in Dillenkofer & Others v. Germany (Case C-178/94) [1996] ECR I-4845. Case C-178/94, Dillenkofer & Others v. Germany [1996] The Package Travel Directive, ECR I-4845 Directive 90/134, was due to go into effect on December 31, 1992. The organiser and/or retailer parties to the contract are required to "offer appropriate evidence of security for the reimbursement of money handed over and for the repatriation of the consumer in the case of insolvency," according to Article 7. The directive was not put into effect by German authorities until July 1994. Two German package trip companies filed for bankruptcy in 1993. The numerous claimants—among them Erich Dillenkofer—thus either lost their vacations, for which they had already paid, or were already on vacation and had to pay for flights back to Germany. Inability to receive compensation from the tour operators led the claimants to file a lawsuit against the German government, claiming that if the government had acted sooner, the tour operators would have been required to have adequate security (such as insurance) to pay for refunds and/or repatriation. The German government said that the delay in implementation was due to the necessity for more time for consultation with the affected bodies. According to the ECJ, the directive's Article 7 was meant to grant people rights. The failure to implement the directive by the deadline constituted a grave breach of EU law that automatically entitled the holder to damages, subject to proof of causation. In the second scenario, the Member State disobeys unambiguous ECJ case law. For instance, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) noted that the employment conditions imposed on fire fighters in the German city of Halle were not only in violation of Directive 2003/88 (the Working Time Directive - see Chapter 17), but also of at least three earlier ECJ decisions, in Fuß v. Stadt Halle (Case C-429/09) [2010] ECR I-12167. It comes as no surprise that this was deemed a significant violation of EU law. The Court declared (emphasis added) that: "Where the decision in question was issued in apparent violation of the case law of the Court in the matter, an infringement of EU law will be sufficiently serious," the court stated. Foot vs. City Halle (Case C–429/09) [2010] ECR I–12167 German firefighter Günter Fuß worked in Halle. He was required to work an average of 54 hours per week under the terms of his job contract. Much of this time was spent on "stand-by," where Günter was obligated to be present at the fire station in case of an emergency but was not actually performing any tasks. Nevertheless, he claimed that his working hours exceeded those allowed by Directive 2003/88, which limits the length of the workweek to a maximum of 48 hours on average. Günter requested backdated overtime pay in exchange for the hours he had worked in violation of the directive up until that date. The ECJ determined that imposing a 54-hour workweek was a major violation of the directive's intent to grant rights to individuals. In coming to that finding, the Court noted that "standby" time had already been unambiguously established as "working time" in numerous earlier ECJ cases dating back to 2000. e'. The German court had to decide whether there was a direct causal connection. ts. In theory, it is up to the national courts to determine whether a violation of EU legislation qualifies as "sufficiently serious." However, the ECJ has identified a number of variables that may be employed, including the following: whether the violation and damage were made intentionally or accidentally; the clarity and specificity of the rule that was broken; the amount of discretion the regulation left open; If a legal mistake was made, whether it was justifiable or not; whether the stance taken by a Union institution may have influenced the adoption or maintenance of national policies or practices that violate EU law.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kembara's Legal InfosInfos about legal issues and legal concepts that are available online . Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|