Skip to main content

Addressing Issues of Protective Scope within the Francovich Right to Reparation


EU Law – Member State liability in damages – Issues of protective scope about exactly which individuals/interests are protected – Conditions for Member State liability – Intention to confer rights criterion – Tendency towards a ‘checklist’ approach by the Court of Justice of the European Union – Potential implications for scope of Member State liability – Finding appropriate balance between protecting individuals and punishing public bodies – Example of free movement rights – Example of environmental legislation – Example of employment legislation

Hide All

1 ECJ 19 November 1991, ECLI:EU:C:1991:428, Francovich v Italian Republic.

2 ECJ 17 April 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:213, A.G.M.-COS.MET Srl, para. 88. See also e.g. ECJ 26 January 2010, EU:C:2010:39, Transportes Urbanos, para. 36. Punishment or deterrence is thus more a matter for lump sum fines and penalty payments under Art. 260 TFEU. Note that the dual theme of individual compensation plus Member State deterrence/punishment has regularly been discussed in the Francovich literature, e.g. Martin C. Plaza, ‘Furthering the Effectiveness of EC Directives and the Judicial Protection of Individual rights Thereunder’, 43 ICLQ (1994) p. 26 ; Harlow C., ‘ Francovich and the Problem of the Disobedient State’, 2 ELJ (1996) p. 199 ; Craig P., ‘Once More Unto the Breach: The Community, The State and Damages Liability’, 113 LQR (1997) p. 67 ; Bergh R. Van den and Schäfer H.-B., ‘State Liability for Infringement of the EC Treaty: Economic Arguments in Support of a Rule of “Obvious Negligence”’, 23 ELRev (1998) p. 552 ; Anagnostaras G., ‘The Principle of State Liability for Judicial Breaches: The Impact of European Community Law’, 7 European Public Law (2001) p. 281 . Similar debates also apply to private law liability in damages: e.g. Nebbia P., ‘Damages Actions for the Infringement of EC Competition Law: Compensation or Deterrence?’, 33 ELRev (2008) p. 23 .

3 E.g. ECJ 5 March 1996, ECLI:EU:C:1996:79, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III; ECJ 8 October 1996, ECLI:EU:C:1996:375, Dillenkofer.

4 E.g. Francovich, supra n. 1; Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3; ECJ 13 June 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:391, Traghetti del Mediterraneo; ECJ 14 March 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:166, Leth.

5 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3, especially at para. 51.

6 As in Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3 itself.

7 Francovich, supra n. 1.

8 Directive 80/987 [1980] OJ L283/23. See now Directive 2008/94 [2008] OJ L283/36.

9 See Francovich, supra n. 1, especially at paras. 38-41.

10 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3, especially at para. 51.

11 I.e. where the free movement of goods indeed provided both the necessary right and the relevant obligation.

12 Dillenkofer, supra n. 3, especially at paras. 20-27.

13 E.g. ECJ 24 July 2003, ECLI:EU:C:2003:417, Viegas; ECJ 4 July 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:443, Adeneler. Note also the ‘hybrid’ formulation used, e.g. in ECJ 25 February 1999, ECLI:EU:C:1999:98, Carbonari; ECJ 3 October 2000, ECLI:EU:C:2000:526, Gozza.

14 E.g. ECJ 26 March 1996, ECLI:EU:C:1996:131, R v HM Treasury, ex p British Telecommunications; ECJ 17 November 1996, ECLI:EU:C:1996:387, Denkavit International; ECJ 10 July 1997, ECLI:EU:C:1997:351, Palmisani; ECJ 10 July 1997, ECLI:EU:C:1997:348, Bonifaci; Case C-373/95, Maso, ECLI:EU:C:1997:353; ECJ 18 July 2001, ECLI:EU:C:2001:34, Stockholm Lindöpark; ECJ 4 December 2003, ECLI:EU:C:2003:650, Evans.

15 ECJ 30 September 2003, ECLI:EU:C:2003:513, Köbler. Cf. Traghetti del Mediterraneo, supra n. 4; ECJ 24 November 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:775, Commission v Italy; ECJ 16 July 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:471, Diageo Brands; ECJ 9 September 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:565, Ferreira da Silva e Brito; ECJ 6 October 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:662, Târşia. From an extensive literature, see further, e.g. Botella A.-S., ‘La responsabilité du juge national’, 40 RTDE (2004) p. 283 ; Classen C. D., Casenote on Köbler , 41 CMLR (2004) p. 813 ; Breuer M., ‘State Liability for Judicial Wrongs and Community Law: The Case of Gerhard Köbler v Austria ’, 29 ELRev (2004) p. 243 ; Anagnostaras G., ‘Erroneous Judgments and the Prospect of Damages: The Scope of the Principle of Governmental Liability for Judicial Breaches’, 31 ELRev (2006) p. 735 ; Beutler B., ‘State Liability for Breaches of Community Law by National Courts: Is the Requirement of a Manifest Infringement of the Applicable Law an Insurmountable Obstacle?’, 46 CMLR (2009) p. 773 .

16 Cf. ECJ 6 October 1992, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335, CILFIT. More recently, e.g. ECJ 12 February 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:78, Kempter; ECJ 16 December 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:723, Cartesio.

17 Note that we are not referring here to the ‘direct causal link’ criterion, which is concerned rather with the relationship between the Member State’s breach of EU law and the damage suffered by the claimant.

18 Though an autonomous EU right/action which still needs to be located neatly within the various national systems of non-contractual public liability: consider, e.g. Emiliou N., ‘State Liability under Community Law: Shedding More Light on the Francovich Principle?’, 21 ELRev (1996) p. 399 ; Downes T., ‘Trawling for a Remedy: State Liability under Community Law’, 17 Legal Studies (1997) p. 286 ; Barav A., ‘State Liability in Damages for Breach of Community Law in the National Courts’, in T. Heukels and A. McDonnell (eds), The Action for Damages in Community Law (Kluwer Law International 1997); Lewis C., ‘Damages and the Right to an Effective Remedy for Breach of European Community Law’, in C. Forsyth and I. Hare (eds), The Golden Metwand and the Crooked Cord: Essays in Honour of Sir William Wade QC (Oxford University Press 1998); Eeckhout P., ‘Liability of Member States in Damages and the Community System of Remedies’, in J. Beatson and T. Tridimas (eds), New Directions in European Public Law (Hart Publishing 1998).

19 The impact of Francovich upon the principle of national procedural autonomy has been much discussed in the literature – particularly in the immediate aftermath of the ruling, e.g. Barav A., ‘Damages against the State for Failure to Implement EC Directives’, 141 NLJ (1991) p. 1584 ; Bebr G., Casenote on Francovich , 29 CMLR (1992) p. 557 ; Curtin D., ‘State Liability under Community Law: A New Remedy for Private Parties’, 21 ILJ (1992) p. 74 ; Szyszczak E., ‘European Community Law: New Remedies, New Directions?’, 55 MLR (1992) p. 690 ; Caranta R., ‘Governmental Liability after Francovich ’, 52(2) CLJ (1993) p. 272 ; Lewis C. and Moore S., ‘Duties, Directives and Damages in European Community Law’, Public Law (1993) p. 151 ; Ross M., ‘Beyond Francovich ’, 56 MLR (1993) p. 55 . But also in the later literature, e.g. Steiner J., ‘The Limits of State Liability for Breach of European Community Law’, 4 European Public Law (1998) p. 69 ; T. Tridimas, ‘Member State Liability in Damages for Breach of Community Law: An Assessment of the Case Law’, in Beatson and Tridimas supra n. 18; Dougan M., National Remedies Before the Court of Justice: Issues of Harmonisation and Differentiation (Hart Publishing 2004).

20 Consider, e.g. Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3; Case C-5/94, Hedley Lomas, EU:C:1996:205; ECJ 24 September 1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:429, Brinkmann; ECJ 15 June 1999, ECLI:EU:C:1999:306, Rechberger; ECJ 12 December 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:774, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation; A.G.M.-COS.MET, supra n. 2; Leth, supra n. 4. See further, e.g. van Gerven W., ‘Bridging the Unbridgeable: Community and National Tort Laws after Francovich and Brasserie ’, 45 ICLQ (1996) p. 507 ; Deards E., ‘ Brasserie du Pêcheur: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory’, 22 ELRev (1997) p. 620 ; Smith F. and Woods L., ‘Causation in Francovich: The Neglected Problem’, 46 ICLQ (1997) p. 925 ; Tridimas T., ‘Liability for Breach of Community Law: Growing Up and Mellowing Down?’, 38 CMLR (2001) p. 301 .

21 ECJ 20 October 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:674, Danfoss.

22 See, in particular, ECJ 22 December 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:811, DEB.

23 E.g. Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3; Palmisani, supra n. 14; ECJ 8 March 2001, ECLI:EU:C:2001:134, Metallgesellschaft; A.G.M.-COS.MET, supra n. 2.

24 E.g. Bonifaci, supra n. 14; Maso, supra n. 14; Carbonari, supra n. 13; Gozza, supra n. 13; A.G.M.-COS.MET, supra n. 2; ECJ 25 November 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:717, Fuβ.

25 E.g. Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3; Dillenkofer, supra n. 3; Stockholm Lindöpark, supra n. 14; Metallgesellschaft, supra n. 23; Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, supra n. 20; ECJ 13 March 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:161, Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation; ECJ 23 April 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:239, Test Claimants in the CFC and Dividend Group Litigation; ECJ 24 March 2009, ECLI:EU:C:2009:178, Danske Slagterier; Transportes Urbanos, supra n. 2; Fuβ, supra n. 24. On which, see further, e.g. Anagnostaras G., ‘State Liability and Alternative Courses of Action: How Independent Can an Autonomous Remedy Be?’, 21 YEL (2002) p. 355 .

26 E.g. ECJ 1 June 1999, ECLI:EU:C:1999:271, Konle; ECJ 4 July 2000, ECLI:EU:C:2000:357, Haim; ECJ 28 June 2001, ECLI:EU:C:2001:368, Larsy; Köbler, supra n. 15; A.G.M.-COS.MET, supra n. 2; Fuβ, supra n. 24. On which, see further, e.g. Anagnostaras G., ‘The Allocation of Responsibility in State Liability for Breach of Community Law: A Modern Gordian Knot?’, 26 ELRev (2001) p. 139 .

27 E.g. Palmisani, supra n. 14; Danske Slagterier, supra n. 26.

28 E.g. DEB, supra n. 22. Consider also, e.g. Ferreira da Silva e Brito, supra n. 15.

29 Dillenkofer, supra n. 3; Rechberger, supra n. 20. Consider also, e.g. ECJ 2 April 1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:151, Norbrook.

30 ECJ 12 October 2004, ECLI:EU:C:2004:606, Peter Paul.

31 Beginning of course with Francovich, supra n. 1, itself. Note related rulings such as ECJ 9 November 1995, ECLI:EU:C:1995:372, Francovich II; ECJ 18 October 2001, ECLI:EU:C:2001:551, Gharehveran; ECJ 25 February 2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:116, Dimosio.

32 Dillenkofer, supra n. 3.

33 E.g. Dillenkofer, supra n. 3; Norbrook, supra n. 29; Rechberger, supra n. 20.

34 Leth, supra n. 4.

35 Directive 85/337, OJ 1985 L 175/40 (now Directive 2011/92 [2012] OJ L26/1).

36 E.g. as in Bonifaci, supra n. 14; Maso, supra n. 14; Carbonari, supra n. 13.

37 Indeed, the ‘intention to confer rights’ criterion has attracted considerably less scholarly analysis than either the ‘sufficiently serious breach’ or the ‘direct causal link’ requirement – though there are some notable exceptions, e.g. J. Jans et al., Europeanisation of Public Law (Europa Law Publishing 2007) Ch. 8; P. Aalto, Public Liability in EU Law: Brasserie, Bergaderm and Beyond (Hart Publishing 2011). Note that the same relative neglect of the ‘intention to confer rights’ criterion appears true also as regards the corresponding EEA case law on state liability following the ruling of the EFTA Court in Case E-9/97 Sveinbjörnsdóttir v Iceland [1998] EFTRA Court Reports 95: see further, e.g. Magnússon S. and Hannesson O., ‘State Liability in EEA Law: Towards Parallelism or Homogeneity?’, 38 ELRev (2013) p. 167 . The picture is rather more complex in respect of the non-contractual liability of the EU institutions under Arts. 268 and 340(2) TFEU: see further, e.g. Aalto P., Public Liability in EU Law: Brasserie, Bergaderm and Beyond (Hart Publishing 2011); Gutman K., ‘The Evolution of the Action for Damages against the European Union and Its Place in the System of Judicial Protection’, 48 CMLR (2011) p. 695 .

38 Beginning with Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3, especially at para. 54. Also, e.g. Hedley Lomas, supra n. 20; Köbler, supra n. 15; Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, supra n. 20; ECJ 11 June 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:386 Berlington Hungary. Consider also, e.g. Danske Slagterier, supra n. 26.

39 See, e.g. Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3; Metallgesellschaft, supra n. 23. Consider, in particular, the discussion of national discretion over the recovery of economic losses in A.G.M.-COS.MET, supra n. 2.

40 One thinks in particular of complex ‘balancing of rights’ disputes such as ECJ 12 June 2003, ECLI:EU:C:2003:333, Schmidberger. But also of disputes in which the Member State might infringe the Treaties for essentially procedural (rather than substantive) reasons, e.g. ECJ 14 December 2004, ECLI:EU:C:2004:799, Radberger Getränkegesellschaft; ECJ 15 November 2005, ECLI:EU:C:2005:684, Commission v Austria. And of disputes which hinge essentially upon an evaluation of the evidence base for national policy choices, e.g. ECJ 13 April 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:181, Bressol; ECJ 23 December 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:845, Scotch Whisky Association. See further, e.g. Shuibhne N. Nic and Maci M., ‘Proving Public Interest: The Growing Impact of Evidence in Free Movement Caselaw’, 50 CMLR (2013) p. 965 .

41 Notwithstanding the discussion in ECJ 8 September 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:503, Winner Wetten about whether national courts might enjoy the power temporarily to uphold the application of an admittedly unlawful obstacle to movement.

42 At least until the Member State corrects the situation by adopting properly compliant regulatory provisions.

43 See further, e.g. Dougan M., ‘Judicial Review of Member State Action under the General Principles and the Charter: Defining the “Scope of Union Law”’, 52 CMLR (2015) p. 1201 .

44 See, in particular, ECJ 12 September 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:545, Eman and Sevinger. Cf. disputes based on EU liability in respect of the general principles/Charter, e.g. ECJ 14 October 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2282, Giordano v Commission.

45 ECJ 11 July 2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:434, Carpenter.

46 See Art. 7 of the Charter.

47 ECJ 8 March 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:124, Ruiz Zambrano.

48 Note that, in ECJ 10 July 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2068, Ogieriakhi, it appears to have been taken for granted that a Francovich action, based on the Member State’s unlawful refusal of permanent residency for a third country national family member of a migrant EU citizen, could include claims in respect of lost employment/income.

49 See further, e.g. Downes A. and Hilson C., ‘Making Sense of Rights: Community Rights in EC Law’, 24 ELRev (1999) p. 121 ; van Gerven W., ‘Of Rights, Remedies and Procedures’, 37 CMLR (2000) p. 501 ; Eilmansberger T., ‘The Relationship Between Rights and Remedies in EC Law: In Search of the Missing Link’, 41 CMLR (2004) p. 1199 ; Beljin S., ‘Rights in EU Law’, in S. Prechal and B. van Roermund (eds), The Coherence of EU Law: The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts (Oxford University Press 2008).

50 See further, e.g. Dougan M., ‘Who Exactly Benefits from the Treaties? The Murky Interaction Between Union and National Competence Over the Capacity to Enforce EU Law’, 12 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2009-10) p. 73 .

51 E.g. contrast ECJ 7 May 1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:205, Clean Car Autoservice or ECJ 19 March 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:189, E.ON Földgáz Trade with ECJ 13 March 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:163, Unibet or ECJ 15 October 2009, ECLI:EU:C:2009:631, Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening.

52 Consider, e.g. ECJ 20 October 2005, ECLI:EU:C:2005:625, Ten Kate Holding; ECJ 4 October 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:583, Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele; ECJ 16 July 2009, ECLI:EU:C:2009:466, Mono Car Styling.

53 Consider, e.g. ECJ 10 July 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:397, Firma Feryn; ECJ 25 April 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:275, ACCEPT. Equally where private interests are many and dispersed, so that collective actions can provide a more efficient means of redress, and one which does not impose excessive demands upon the judicial system.

54 See further, e.g. P. Oliver, ‘State Liability in Damages Following Factortame III: A Remedy Seen in Context’, in Beatson and Tridimas supra n. 18; Dougan, supra n. 50.

55 ECJ 17 September 2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:497, Muñoz. See further, e.g. A. Biondi, Annotation of Muñoz, 40 CMLR (2003) p. 1241.

56 ECJ 20 September 2001, ECLI:EU:C:2001:465, Courage v Crehan. See further, e.g. van Gerven W., ‘Harmonisation of Private Law: Do We Need It?’, 41 CMLR (2004) p. 505 ; Drake S., ‘Scope of Courage and the Principle of “Individual Liability” for Damages: Further Development of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection by the Court of Justice’, 31 ELRev (2006) p. 841 ; Reich N., ‘Horizontal Liability in EC Law: Hybridization of Remedies for Compensation in Case of Breaches of EC Rights’, 44 CMLR (2007) p. 705 ; Leczykiewicz D., ‘Private Party Liability in EU Law: In Search of the General Regime’, 12 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2009-10) p. 257 .

57 In which regard, consider: Firma Feryn, supra n. 53; ACCEPT, supra n. 53.

58 Peter Paul, supra n. 30.

59 In which regard, consider: ECJ 25 July 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:447, Janecek.

60 Directive 79/7 [1979] OJ L6/24.

61 ECJ 11 July 1991, ECLI:EU:C:1991:314, Verholen.

62 Consider the situations at issue in, e.g. Ten Kate Holding, supra n. 52; Mono Car Styling, supra n. 52.

63 ECJ 4 December 1997, ECLI:EU:C:1997:581, Daihatsu Deutschland.

64 Directive 98/34, OJ 1998 L 204/37 (previously Directive 83/189, OJ 1983 L 109/8).

65 E.g. ECJ 26 February 1986, ECLI:EU:C:1986:84, Marshall; ECJ 14 July 1994, ECLI:EU:C:1994:292, Faccini Dori.

66 ECJ 30 April 1996, ECLI:EU:C:1996:172, CIA Security; ECJ 26 September 2000, ECLI:EU:C:2000:496, Unilever Italia. Contrast with the ruling in ECJ 13 July 1989, ECLI:EU:C:1989:318, Enichem Base.

67 See further, e.g. Weatherill S., ‘Breach of Directives and Breach of Contract’, 26 ELRev (2001) p. 177 ; Dougan M., Annotation of Unilever Italia, 38 CMLR (2001) p. 1503 .

68 ECJ 6 June 2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:343, Sapod Audic.

69 Berlington Hungary, supra n. 38.

70 Directive 85/337, OJ 1985 L 175/40.

71 ECJ 24 October 1996, ECLI:EU:C:1996:404, Kraaijeveld. Also, e.g. ECJ 16 September 1999, ECLI:EU:C:1999:418, World Wildlife Fund; ECJ 19 September 2000, ECLI:EU:C:2000:468, Linster. The Court has followed a similar approach in other (related) legislative contexts, e.g. ECJ 7 September 2004, ECLI:EU:C:2004:482, Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee; Janecek, supra n. 59; ECJ 26 May 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:348, Stichting Natuur en Milieu; ECJ 19 November 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2382, ClientEarth. On the general issues surrounding private standing in environmental disputes, see further, e.g. Ward A., ‘Judicial Review of Environmental Misconduct in the European Community: Problems, Prospects and Strategies’, 1 Yearbook of European Environmental Law (2000) p. 137 ; Somsen H., ‘The Private Enforcement of Member State Compliance with EC Environmental Law: An Unfulfilled Promise?’, 1 Yearbook of European Environmental Law (2000) p. 311 ; Macrory R. and Turner S., ‘Participatory Rights, Transboundary Environmental Governance and EC Law’, 39 CMLR (2002) p. 489 .

72 In particular: Directive 2003/35 [2003] OJ L156/17; but see now the codified provisions of Directive 2011/92 [2012] OJ L26/1. Consider, e.g. Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening, supra n. 51; ECJ 8 March 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:125, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie; ECJ 12 May 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:289, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland; ECJ 16 April 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:231, Gruber.

73 E.g. ECJ 28 February 1991, Case C-131/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-825; ECJ 30 May 1991, Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2567; ECJ 30 May 1991, Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2607; Case C-58/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-4983; Case C-298/95 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-6747.

74 ECJ 7 January 2004, ECLI:EU:C:2004:12, Delena Wells.

75 See further, for critical discussion, e.g. Prechal S. and Hancher L., ‘Individual Environmental Rights: Conceptual Pollution in EU Environmental Law?’, 2 Yearbook of European Environmental Law (2001) p. 89 ; Wenneras P., ‘State Liability for Decisions of Courts of Last Instance in Environmental Cases’, 16 Journal of Environmental Law (2004) p. 329 .

76 Leth, supra n. 4.

77 In the future, possibly also, e.g. when it comes to delimiting the recoverable extent and heads of loss.

78 See further on the general conceptual and legal framework/background, M. Dougan, ‘What is the Point of Francovich?’, in T. Tridimas and P. Nebbia (eds.), European Union Law for the 21 st Century: Rethinking the New Legal Order (Volume 1) (Hart Publishing 2004).

79 E.g. ECJ 8 February 1996, ECLI:EU:C:1996:40, FMC, and ECJ 2 December 1997, ECLI:EU:C:1997:580, Fantask (subject only to the defence of passing on/unjust enrichment as recognised under EU law).

80 See, in particular, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3, especially at paras. 28-29 and paras. 43-47. Also, e.g. R v HM Treasury, ex p British Telecommunications, supra n. 14; Haim, supra n. 26. See further, e.g. Craig P., ‘ Francovich, Remedies and the Scope of Damages Liability’, 109 LQR (1993) p. 595 ; N. Gravells, ‘State Liability in Damages for Breach of European Community Law’, Public Law (1996) p. 567; Craig, supra n. 3; D. Waelbroeck, ‘Treaty Violations and Liability of Member States: The Effect of the Francovich Caselaw’, in Heukels and McDonnell, supra n. 18. For a different view, see e.g. D. Edward and W. Robinson, ‘Is There a Place for Private Law Principles in Community Law?’, in Heukels and McDonnell, supra n. 18.

81 On the post-Brasserie evolution of the sufficiently serious breach criteria, consider in particular: Haim, supra n. 26; Larsy, supra n. 26; Köbler, supra n. 15; ECJ 25 January 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:56, Robins; ECJ 16 October 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:565, Synthon. See further, e.g. Hilson C., ‘The Role of Discretion in EC Law on Non-Contractual Liability’, 42 CMLR (2005) p. 677 .

82 See further, on the right to effective judicial protection in private law relationships, e.g. ECJ 10 April 1984, ECLI:EU:C:1984:153, Von Colson and ECJ 15 May 1986, ECLI:EU:C:1986:206, Johnston.

83 Courage v Crehan, supra n. 56; ECJ 13 July 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:461, Manfredi; ECJ 5 June 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:1317, Kone. On the development of private liability in damages under EU law, see further, e.g. van Gerven, supra n. 20; A. Komninos, ‘New Prospects for Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law: Courage v Crehan and the Community Right to Damages’, 39 CMLR (2002) p. 447; N. Reich, ‘The Courage Doctrine: Encouraging or Discouraging Compensation for Antitrust Injuries?’, 42 CMLR (2005) p. 35. See now Directive 2014/104 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union [2014] OJ L329/1. On the development of the legislative regime, see further, e.g. Eilmansberger T., ‘The Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules and Beyond: Reflections on the Utility and Feasibility of Stimulating Private Enforcement Through Legislative Action’, 44 CMLR (2007) p. 431 ; Dunne N., ‘ Courage and Compromise: The Directive on Antitrust Damages’, 40 ELRev (2015) p. 581 .

84 Consider, e.g. the limitation on damages liability in respect of EU competition law infringements in cases where this would lead to the claimant’s unjust enrichment: e.g. Courage v Crehan, supra n. 56; Manfredi, supra n. 83. Consider also EU legislation establishing the conditions for/limits of private liability in particular contexts, e.g. the Product Liability Directive 85/374 [1985] OJ L210/29; Regulation 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights [2004] OJ L46/1.

85 It is interesting to note that, for many private lawyers, the prospect of extending EU principles of judicial protection from their original public law home into the distinct private law sphere equally raises concerns over legal coherence and individual autonomy: see, e.g. D. Leczykiewicz, ‘The Constitutional Dimension of Private Law Liability Rules in the EU’, in D. Leczykiewicz and S. Weatherill (eds), The Involvement of EU Law in Private Law Relationships (Hart Publishing 2013).

86 Directive 2006/54 [2006] OJ L204/23 (previously Directive 76/207 [1976] OJ L39/40). See, e.g. ECJ 8 November 1990, ECLI:EU:C:1990:383, Dekker; ECJ 22 April 1997, ECLI:EU:C:1997:208, Draehmpaehl.

87 See further, e.g. Chiti M., ‘The EC Notion of Public Administration: The Case of the Bodies Governed by Public Law’, 8 European Public Law (2002) p. 473 .

88 E.g. ECJ 6 June 2000, ECLI:EU:C:2000:296, Angonese.

89 E.g. ECJ 28 November 1989, ECLI:EU:C:1989:599, Groener.

90 Cf. Art. 7(3) Regulation 492/2011 [2011] OJ L141/1 (previously Regulation 1612/68 [1968] OJ L257/2).

91 E.g. ECJ 4 April 1974, ECLI:EU:C:1974:35, Commission v France.

92 Köbler, supra n. 15.

93 ECJ 9 July 1985, ECLI:EU:C:1985:306, Bozzetti. Similarly, e.g. ECJ 18 January 1996, ECLI:EU:C:1996:10, SEIM; ECJ 22 October 1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:498, IN.CO.GE.’90.

94 Consider, e.g. Case C-300/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:757, Ursula Voß (Germany); ECJ 15 April 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:223, Impact (Ireland). Consider also, e.g. ECJ 16 July 2009, ECLI:EU:C:2009:468, Visciano.

95 See further, e.g. Deards E., ‘Curiouser and Curiouser? The Development of Member State Liability in the Court of Justice’, 3 European Public Law (1997) p. 117 . Note that the Court appears keen to treat Francovich as the relevant framework through which to assess the Member State’s non-contractual liability in respect of public law defaults, including in situations where the possibility of damages is explicitly referred to by the relevant EU legislation: consider, e.g. ECJ 9 December 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:751, van Spijker.

96 More recently, e.g. ECJ 24 January 2012, ECLI:EU:C:2012:33, Dominguez; ECJ 15 January 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2, AMS; ECJ 11 September 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2209, Papasavvas; ECJ 26 March 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:200, Fenoll.

97 E.g. ECJ 17 September 1997, ECLI:EU:C:1997:413, Dorsch Consult; ECJ 24 September 1998, ECLI:EU:C:1998:434, EvoBus Austria; ECJ 19 April 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:229, Farrell; ECJ 21 June 2007, ECLI:EU:C:2007:373, Jonkman; ECJ 3 September 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2133, Proceedings Brought by X.

98 E.g. Hedley Lomas, supra n. 20; ECJ 20 November 1997, ECLI:EU:C:1997:553, Petrie; Brinkmann, supra n. 20; ECJ 7 September 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:525, N; A.G.M.-COS.MET, supra n. 2.

99 Consider, e.g. ECJ 14 January 1997, ECLI:EU:C:1997:12, Comateb; ECJ 22 April 1997, ECLI:EU:C:1997:207, R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex p Sutton; ECJ 17 July 1997, ECLI:EU:C:1997:376, GT-Link; Evans, supra n. 14; Köbler, supra n. 15; Traghetti del Mediterraneo, supra n. 4; ECJ 19 June 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2005, Specht. See further, e.g. M. Dougan, ‘The Francovich Right to Reparation: Reshaping the Contours of Community Remedial Competence’, (2000) 6 European Public Law 103.

100 Fuβ, supra n. 24.

101 Directive 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ 2003 L299/9.

102 Fuβ, supra n. 24, para. 46.

103 Though for a different perspective, see J. Tomkin, Casenote on Fuβ, 49 CMLR (2012) p. 1423.

104 Cf. ECJ 22 December 2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:819, Gavieiro Gavieiro: a claim for unlawfully withheld wages can be brought against a public sector employer based on the direct effect of the relevant EU employment directive, without having to consider the availability of damages pursuant to the Francovich case law. And contrast with Specht, supra n. 99, where it is not possible directly to restore equal treatment in working conditions, in an action brought against a public sector employer based on EU employment law, the claimant may have no choice but to seek reparations from the Member State pursuant to Francovich (affirmed in ECJ 9 September 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:561, Unland).

105 Note in particular the discussion in Fuβ, supra n. 24, paras. 65-70.

106 See Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III, supra n. 3, para. 32. Also, e.g. Köbler, supra n. 15.

107 See, for detailed studies of various national experiences in translating Francovich into the domestic legal context, e.g. Kremer C., ‘Liability for Breach of European Community Law: An Analysis of the New Remedy in the Light of English and German Law’, 22 YEL (2003) p. 203 ; Claes M., The National Courts’ Mandate in the European Constitution (Hart Publishing 2006) Ch. 11; Granger M.-P., ‘National Applications of Francovich and the Construction of a European Administrative Ius Commune ’, 32 ELRev (2007) p. 157 ; M. Künnecke, ‘Divergence and the Francovich Remedy in German and English Courts’, in Prechal and van Roermund, supra n. 49; Giliker P., ‘English Tort Law and the Challenge of Francovich Liability: 20 Years On’, 128 LQR (2012) p. 541 ; Lock T., ‘Is Private Enforcement of EU Law Through State Liability A Myth? An Assessment 20 Years After Francovich ’, 49 CMLR (2012) p. 1675 .

* Liverpool Law School, University of Liverpool. I am very grateful to the editors and reviewers for their invaluable comments on an earlier draft.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

European Constitutional Law Review
  • ISSN: 1574-0196
  • EISSN: 1744-5515
  • URL: /core/journals/european-constitutional-law-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 19
Total number of PDF views: 222 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 532 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 15th February 2017 - 11th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.