This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

C-91/92 Faccini Dori v Recreb [1994] ECR I-3325; [1994] ECR I - 3325 ECJ

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 07/01/2024 05:07

Judgement for the case C-91/92 Faccini Dori v Recreb

Table Of Contents

  • (Contrast AG's opinion with that of the Court): Plaintiff had subscribed to a language course with a company and later decided to cancel her subscription, which was allowed for by an EU directive.

  • The company refused to cancel her subscription and assigned its rights to Recreb, who went to court to obtain the money from her.

  • Court was unsure whether the EC directive, which had not been transposed into Italian law (despite the time limit for transposition expiring).

ECJ

  • Said:

    1. That the directive was clear, unconditional, etc. so that it could be said to confer rights;

    2. That untransposed directives cannot grant private citizens rights that are enforceable against each other (Marshall - no horizontal direct effect);

    3. That, however, following Marleasing, there was indirect effect so that the Italian court had to interpret Italian law within the meaning of the Directive; and

    4. Where interpretation is not possible and the plaintiff cannot enforce her rights granted by the directive, then the state must compensate her, under Francovich, since it is the state’s liability where someone has lost out because the state has not transposed a directive on time. 

AG Lenz

  • Vertical direct effect is of limited use to an individual where the directive is targeted at individuals, businesses, etc. (as here).

  • The way the courts get round this is through a broad interpretation of state, construction of domestic law in a way that is consistent with the directive, and state compensation.

  • He says it would be better to give directives horizontal effect (contrary to ECJ ruling in this case):

    • It would ensure that companies throughout union are on level playing field (whereas at the moment companies in state that transpose directives in time are at a disadvantage;

    • It would further the approximation of laws, as is the stated aim of the treaty article concerned here;

    • prevents discrimination, both of companies and consumers, to allow EC laws to apply differently to citizens of different MSs;

    • and it would be better for legal certainty. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on C-91/92 Faccini Dori v Recreb

GDL EU Law Notes
409 total pages
91 purchased

A collection of the best GDL notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an O...

European Law Notes
1,161 total pages
1028 purchased

European Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

European Human Rights Law Notes
305 total pages
213 purchased

European Human Rights law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxfor...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Constitutional Law Notes
588 total pages
454 purchased

Constitutional Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and C...