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

Marshall v Health Authority (No. 1) [1986] Case 152/84

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

Judgement for the case Marshall v Health Authority (No. 1)

Table Of Contents

  • Marshall was dismissed by a health authority on the grounds that she had reached the retirement age required by the health authority, and she prosecuted them under the Equal Treatment Directive (since men were being sacked at an older age).

  • However the ECJ said that direct effect did not apply between private groups/individuals (merely against govt or the Commission). Thus no horizontal effect is allowed.

    • This was on the grounds that the article 249 only required that “each member state to whom it is addressed” comply with the directive and does not impose obligations on individuals or corporations.

    • Thus a public-private distinction is drawn. (NB court said that health authority = part of state)

  • This reasoning is bad because the ECJ should not limit itself to black letter law (if it did then there is no basis for direct effect AT ALL!).

    • Secondly, even if we do take the black letter law approach, the directive is meant to be binding on the “member state”.

    • This does not mean merely the government or the public sector, but the entire member state (i.e. the country as a whole).

  • There was a further argument put by Advocate General Slynn which was a rule of law concern: no requirement that directives be published in the official journal.

    • However there was a requirement of announcing time limits and therefore it will not be the case that people simply “didn’t know” of the directive’s existence. 

  • This case also went against the Defrenne principle that directives apply to every corporation or private interest, not just public authorities (Though Defrenne was relating to a treaty provision whereas this relates to a directive)

AG Slynn

  • Did have the argument that granting horizontal effect would abolish the distinction between regulations and directives. (Wrong: directives would still give member states a choice over method, unlike regulations)

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Marshall v Health Authority (No. 1)

European Law Notes
1,161 total pages
1027 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...