​European Union Law ( EU Law) - Clarity and accuracy

​European Union Law ( EU Law) - Clarity and accuracy
In many state responsibility instances, a Directive's improper implementation is a factor. Depending on how precisely the Directive is worded, such violations may or may not be considered sufficiently significant. The shortcomings by (respectively) the UK and Germany were ruled not to be severe in the cases of BT (Case C-392/93) [1996] ECR I- 1631 and Denkavit International v. Germany (Case C-283/94) [1996] ECR I- 5063, partly due to the lack of accuracy or clarity in the Directives' text. Additionally, both states had attempted to correctly execute the Directive in good faith (suggesting the breach was also excusable).

Case C-392/93, E BT, [1996] ECR I–1631 Through the Utilities Supplies & Works Contracts Regulations of 1992, the UK put Directive 90/531 into effect. The transposition, according to BT, was made erroneously, and the company filed a claim for damages to cover the costs of complying with the regulations as well as the harm it suffered as a result of being at a competitive and commercial disadvantage. Although the ECJ found that the UK government had not correctly implemented the regulation, it rejected the claim for damages because the violation was not severe enough. There were several causes: Since the UK acted in good faith, there was no guidance from ECJ case law regarding the proper interpretation of Article 8(1) of the Directive, the Commission did not object when the 1992 Regulations were adopted, and the offending portion of the Directive was based on a vaguely worded provision that was reasonably capable of bearing the meaning given to it by the UK.

In contrast, in Stockholm Lindöpark v. Sweden (Case C-150/99) and Rechberger & Others v. Austria (Case C-140/97) [1999] ECR I- 3499), Because the relevant Directives were expressly stated in both instances [2001] ECR I-493, it was determined that improper implementation was significant and that the violation was not justifiable.