80/86 Kolpinghuis [1987] ECR 3969
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-07 04:31:39 UTC
The principle of indirect (horizontal) effect could not be applied by a member state to support the retroactive prosecution of a Dutch firm for stocking adulterated mineral water which was in breach of a Community directive.
The implementation period had expired and the Netherlands should have implemented it, but had not. In such circumstances a directive would not give rise to indirect effect.
ECJ
Indirect effect may not be used in such a way as will contradict any of the general principles of the EU, such as non-retroactivity and legitimate expectations.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
C-268/06 Impact
(See the rule against contra legem interpretation): Ireland implemented a directive into national legislation a year after the deadline. Irish law generally prohibits retroactivity. Plaintiffs had a...
C-456/98 Centrosteel v Adipol
(Contrast para 17 and the ruling proper): This case concerned an unimplemented directive that applied different rules to contracts with commercial agents to national legislation (directive said valid...
45/76 Comet
A levy had been paid but was found to be a customs charge, contrary to the Treaty. Under Dutch law the period in which it was possible to claim the money back had passed. Plaintiff argued that since...
148/78 Ratti
If the time limit given for the implementation of the directive has not expired, it cannot have direct effect. Directives were directly effective only if the prescribed date, by which the Member Stat...
C-91/92 Faccini Dori v Recreb
(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. Th...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.