One of the major tenets that should be understood prior to analysis is the basic framework upon which the European doctrines of justice regarding liability have been established. The European Union is based on the express governance of the “multidimensional polities that recognize different levels of governance, each with the acknowledged power to regulate within a sphere of competence.” In this case, the tenets of EU liability law are essentially the result of the need to present the ability for those who come under the actions of the member states to be given a legal means for representation within the court of law. These means are important to consider in understanding the relationship between these legal standards that have been implemented.
This is the major strength of these liability rules under the establishment of these regulations. The implications of the EU system of governance and the doctrines regarding legal restrictions for liability present a challenge to the effective application of these criteria. The courts must, therefore, “treat the law of the union differently from conventional international agree.” For this reason, claims on liability are held in the strict sense through the doctrines of common good that were established in order to ensure the continuing reliability of the EU's human rights needs. These needs promote the effective establishment of the rights of the individual within the legal framework of the EU.
This presents an important consideration in regards to the liability claims of these legal frameworks. For this reason, there is a “general doctrine of member state liability in damages for violations of EC.” This allows the individual states that have made the agreement to be a part of the EU, and receive its benefits, to also be subject to the will of the courts in regards to the presentation of liability claims. These legal aspects are, therefore, a fundamental aspect of the legal representation of the EU's court system for the citizens within the individual member states. This aspect is important to consider in understanding the basis of the claims that are brought against the states themselves.
One of the major considerations of liability claims within the EU is the ability for the individuals within a member state to gain the recognition of the Union as a whole. “According to the case-law of the Court (Francovich case, joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90), an individual citizen is entitled to seek compensation from a Member State which is not complying with Union law.” These powers were granted in order to provide these individuals with the capabilities necessary to challenge various decisions regarding liability that have been made in the sovereign nations. These capabilities are present in the underlying framework of the legal structure of the EU's court system due to these decisions.
Furthermore, these capabilities are structured in a way that allows the individual to make their claim without having to actually demonstrate that the states tehmselves are liable. “Fault on the part of the Member State does not then have to be demonstrated in order to establish liability” (Raffaelli 3). This provides a flexibility that grants the citiznes of the EU the ability to enforce their own rules. For this reason, it is important to understand the complexity of the relationship between the EU and its members. “Under primary law, the EU has only limited powers of enforcement, as EU law is usually enforced by the Member States.” In this sense, enforcement is based on the powers that the individual states had, resulting in the need for the establishment of liability standards across the board.
In looking at the cases C-46/93 Brasserie du pêcheur and C-48/93, it is evident that Factortame presented the principle of liability that was able to be enforced by the courts. In this sense, “the principle of general liability encompassing any infringement of Union law attributable to a Member State.” This is an important point at which liability claims were established within the EU and provides insight into the underlying considerations that went into the needs for effective liability rights for the EU to provide private entities when dealing with the member states.
This is evident in the underlying considerations given by the EU's courts in the matter. “The Court stressed that if a Member State infringes EU law and causes damage to a private party, it has an obligation to recover this damage.” However, in the case of Francovich, there was an important change. This is due to the fact that “all the cases heard before Francovich did not constitute a suitable basis for clear and explicit conditions for such liability.” These challenges present an important aspect of the development of the EU's legal framework.
The underlying need for these basic rights was established in regards to the consideration that the decision makers for the importance of the individual's rights within the larger Union. These practices were put into place as the justice system of the EU “endeavored to prevent [private parties] from becoming overloaded, thus avoiding a situation like that at the European Court of Human Right.” This resulted in the establishment of effective decisions regarding the needs of individuals and their ability to file liability claims against their member nations. “The principle of state liability is the last and logical continuation of the ECJ’s teleological construction comprising the principles of direct effect and indirect effect.” These ideas are important in regards to the need to understand the relationship between the various forms of liability claim./
These liability claims are, essentially, the result of the continuation of law based on communal needs. This presents an important advantage to the effective application of decisions on the part of the courts. In this sense, the existence of liability for the EU “flows from the need to secure the primacy of Community law.” These needs are important to consider in order to develop the underlying capabilities of the personal freedoms of individuals within the scope of the EU. By doing so, these values are effectively maintained within the context of the member states.
The underlying needs of liability rights is in regards to the basis that these rights have in the values of their individual choices. In this sense, it is evident that “certain directives do give rise to individual rights or obligations that national courts could apply in specific situations.” For this reason, the basis of these claims seems to be conceived in relation to the values that are inherent within the directives of the effects that are being considered. “However, the concept of directives continues to be inconclusive as ECJ has failed to remove the confusion over the limitations of horizontal direct effects.” This presents a challenge to the directives that were established by the indivdiual states when compared to those that have been developed by the EU.
The principles under consideration are, therefore, an important part of the needs of communities within the EU in maintaining their basic rights over the larger framework of the Union. It is, therefore, evident that the principle of effectiveness “indicates that the exercise of Community rights should not in practice be impossible or excessively difficult.” These considerations present the importance of maintaining the values of these local needs throughout the effective application of the Union's legal framework.
Bibliography
Agnė Vaitkevičiūt, 'Member States Liability in Damages for the Breach of European Union Law-Legal Basis and Conditions For Liability' (2011), Jurisprudence, 18, 1, 49-68.
Chenoy Ceil, 'Horizontal Direct Effect of Directives' (2015), Social Science Research Network.
Daniel J. Meltzer, 'Member state liability in Europe and the United State' (2006), Oxford University Press, 39-83.
Evangelos Nikolau, 'From Francovich to Köbler and beyond: The evolution of a State liability regime for the European Community' (2005), LLM, 105.
Hui Yu, 'The Mysterious State Liability Doctrine of European Community: An Uncertainty Analysis' (2006), Aarhus Shchool of Business, 77.
James Marson, 'Holes in the safety net? State liability and the need for private law enforcement' (2004), Liverpool Law Review, 25 (2), 113-134.
Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, 'The ABC of European Union Law' (2010), European Union Publications Office, 140.
Lora Borissova, 'Enforcement Actions under EU Law: The New Member States' (2007), European Institute of Public Administration, 21.
Philipp Gasparo, 'The Transposition of the Principle of Member State Liability into the Context of External Relation' (1999), EJIL, 10, 605-624.
Rosa Raffaelli, 'Sources and Scope of European Union Law' (2015), Fact Sheet on the European Union, 4.
