Member State Liability in Damages

This chapter addresses the Treaty's provisions on the enforcement of EU law, particularly looking at Articles 258–260 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). The European Commission's enforcement action, known as ‘infringement proceedings’, is set out in Article 258 TFEU. If the Commission proves an infringement has occurred, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will issue a binding verdict that requires the Member State to rectify the breach: in other words, to amend its domestic laws until they are compliant with EU law. Article 260 TFEU makes clear, however, that the CJEU can only order ‘compliance’. Article 259 sets out a very similar process, rarely used, for Member State v Member State infringement proceedings. The chapter then considers the CJEU's development of the principles of direct and indirect effect and state liability, and explores the remedies for breaches of EU law. It also assesses the impact of Brexit on the enforcement of EU law.

Download Full-text

Member State Liability vs. National Procedural Autonomy: What Rules for Judicial Breach of EU Law?

German Law Journal ◽

10.1017/s2071832200018617 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. 419-438 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Nicolo Zingales

Keyword(s):

Member State ◽

Limit State ◽

European Law ◽

Eu Law ◽

Applicable Law ◽

Community Law ◽

Legal Provisions ◽

Italian Law ◽

European Court ◽

State Liability

In Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA in Liquidation v. Italian Republic, the European Court of Justice (EG) ruled that Community law precludes the existence of two types of national rules that limit State liability: (1) rules that exclude liability for damages due to an infringement of Community law that arises out of an interpretation of legal provisions or an assessment of facts or evidence carried out by a court adjudicating at last instance, or (2) those limiting liability solely to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court, if such a limitation were to lead to exclusion of the liability of the Member State in other cases where a manifest infringement of the applicable law was committed. This article, while recognizing that the ruling in Traghetti del Mediterraneo is in line with previous case-law on Member States' liability for breach of EU law, casts some doubts as to whether such an invasion of an area traditionally regulated by national law is in fact desirable. It questions what the foundations are of the procedural rights conferred by European law, and, in doing so, the extent to which European law can tamper with the constitutional balance of a state. Finally, it provides some tentative solutions to the dilemma faced by Italian law following the delivery of the Traghetti del Mediterraneo judgement.

Download Full-text

2. Supremacy, direct effect, indirect effect, and state liability

10.1093/he/9780198815181.003.0002 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Matthew J. Homewood

Keyword(s):

Member State ◽

Direct Effect ◽

Indirect Effect ◽

National Court ◽

Legal Order ◽

Eu Law ◽

Key Concepts ◽

State Liability ◽

The Eu

This chapter discusses the key concepts within the EU legal order: supremacy, direct effect, indirect effect, and state liability. The doctrine of supremacy dictates that EU law takes precedence over conflicting provisions of national law. If a provision of EU law is directly effective, it gives rise to rights upon which individuals can rely directly in the national court. If an EU measure is not directly effective, a claimant may be able to rely on it through the application of indirect effect, which requires national law to be interpreted in accordance with relevant EU law. State liability gives rise to a right to damages where an individual has suffered loss because a Member State has failed to implement a directive or has committed other breaches of EU law.

Download Full-text