Cases for Directives, Direct Effect and Direct Applicability

Van Gend en Loos (1963)

• A postal and transportation company who imported urea formaldehyde from West Germany to the Netherlands. The authorities charged a tariff on the import
• Van Gend en Loos objected, stating that it was a clear violation of Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome (now replaced by Article 30 TFEU) which stated:

"Member states shall refrain from introducing between themselves any new customs duties on imports and exports or any charges having equivalent effect, and from increasing those which already apply in their trade with each other"

• The Tarief Commissie argued that the treaty doesn't apply to corporate entities
• The case held because Article 12 was capable of creating personal rights for Van Gend en Loos, even though this was not expressly stated

Macarthys Ltd v Smith (1979)

• Mrs Wendy Smith worked for Macarthys Ltd in their factory. She was paid £50 a week when a former male employee had been paid £60 a week for the same job
• The claimant said that this was unlawful according to either the Equal Pay Act 1970 or the Treaty of the European Community Article 119
• Macarthys argued that she had no claim because the UK's Equal Pay Act 1970 did not allow comparisons with former colleagues.
• Smith argued that, if this was true under UK law, then European Community law did allow for such a comparison and it would override the UK statute as it is from a treaty, making it directly applicable
• The case held because the treaty does override UK law, so Mrs Smith was right in her claim

Marshall v Southampton Area Health Authority (1986)

• Helen Marshall, a senior dietitian, was dismissed from her job working for an Area Health Authority, despite expressing a willingness to continue in employment until the age of 65. She was dismissed solely because she had 'passed the retirement age' - The AHA's policy was to make women compulsorily retire at 60, but men at 65
• She claimed that her dismissal violated the Equal Treatment Directive 1976. Section 27 and 28 of the Social Security Act 1975 provided that state pensions were to be granted to men at age 65 and women at 60, though did not impose any obligations to retire at that age
• The case held, as she suffered financial loss and the satisfaction from working as a result of the government failing to implement the directive. She was able to sue the government by means of vertical direct effect

Van Duyn v the Home Office (1975)

• Van Duyn was a Dutch national who was associated with Scientology. She was refused entry to the UK because of this association
• The case held because the freedom of movement for workers between Member States can only be restricted due to public policy, public security, public health or overriding reasons of public interest (as created by the Court of Justice). Van Duyn could have been refused entry on the basis of one of the aforementioned restrictions (if applicable), but as she was denied entry on the basis of religion, it was unlawful to prevent her entry
• This case proved that a directive can have vertical direct effect if unimplemented or implemented incorrectly in order to prevent negative effects on individuals