European Union Law ( EU Law) - intentional violation in State Liability

 European Union Law ( EU Law) - intentional violation in State Liability 
The third consideration involves determining if the violation was purposeful (which makes it more likely to be serious). For instance, in Factortame III [1999] 3 WLR 1062, when the matter was handed back to the House of Lords from the ECJ, the House finally decided that the UK had seriously violated Article 49 TFEU because the government had done so on purpose. Lord Slynn said (italics in original):

"It seems to me evident that the willful passage of legislation that was manifestly discriminatory on the basis of nationality and that inherently violated [Article 49 TFEU]... constituted a flagrant breach of fundamental Treaty duties," the court wrote. It was a serious violation of the Treaty both on its own terms and in light of the repercussions it was certain to have—or, at the very least, was most likely to have—on the responders. It has not been demonstrated that it was excuseable.

In contrast, the Court of Appeal determined that the UK government's failure to effectively implement Directive 2003/9 was not sufficiently significant in Negassi v. Home Secretary [2013] EWCA Civ 151; [2013] 2 CMLR 45. The lack of intent on the part of the government was one of the factors that the Court considered while making this ruling. Kay LJ said (italics in original):

"I believe that the assessment of the seriousness of the infringement in this case is pretty delicately balanced. I've come to the opinion that the violation wasn't severe enough to pass the test. It wasn't planned, either. It was the outcome of a misinterpretation of recent regulations in a topic that had recently raised EU concerns. It wasn't an egregious or cynical misunderstanding.