To understand how the effect the Marshall case and the denial of the horizontal direct effect have

been effected and we to look at the history and to see how it became to where the law is now and how it developed. The doctrine of direct effect was established in the case of Van gend en loos 1963 that involved conflict between Dutch law and what was the article 12 (now article 30). From that the direct effect was created the meaning of direct effect remains disputed. In the board sense it means that provision of binding EC law which are clear, precise and unconditional enough to be considered justiciable can be invoked and relied on by individuals before national court. There is also a narrower or classical concept of direct effect. The question of the direct effect of a treaty article was first raised in the (Nigel Foster2012) Van gend en loos v Nederlandse. In the case of Van gend en loos 1963 Dutch importer of ureaformaldehyde objected imposition of 85 tariff on import of that product by Dutch customs authorities. Claimed that new tariff violated (EEC Treaty art. 12) which required member states to refrain from increasing duties on imports which they already apply in trade w/ each other. In other words whether the national of member state may on the basis of the article in question enforce rights which the judge should protect. The problem was whether an individual may invoke (art. 12) before national court/tribunal, and whether reclassifying the object imported at a higher customs duty constituted a violation of (art. 12). It was said that The wording of Article 12 contains a clear and unconditional prohibition which is not a positive but a negative obligation. This obligation, moreover, is not qualified by any reservation on the part of states which would make its implementation conditional upon a positive legislation measure enacted under national law. They are very nature of this prohibition makes it ideally adapted to produce direct effects in the legal relationship between Member States and their subjects. In this case it shows that the citizen could sue and have the right to sue the state. It was said in the treaty article a provision only has direct effect if certain requirements are satisfied 1 the provision must be clear, precise and unambiguous 2 the provision must establish an unconditional obligation with no discretion to the state or institutions 3 the obligations must be complete and legally perfect, not dependent upon implementation. Direct effect was relevant to the case because there was a conflict between what fell within national law and how it conflict with EC law. The citizen would have had no protection if had been unable to rely on EC law in the case. Even though the case Van Gend en loos there was no horizontal created but it did create the vertical. This was one of the questions for the court in Defrenne v Sabena (1976) which involved a claim for equal pay made against an employer under art141. The ECJ rejected the argument that direct effect was a means only of enforcing substantive EC laws against the member state. The court identified that there two types of direct effect: vertical direct effect and horizontal direct effect. From this it was where the different between horizontal and vertical were established. It was that Vertical direct effect which concerns the relationship between EC law and national law. The vertical direct effect law measures of EC law create obligations on the state to ensure their observance is met. A failure on the part of member states to honour treaty obligation would usually give rise to an action against the state under art 226. Horizontal direct effect on the other hand is concerned instead with the

relationship between individual and other individuals. This includes any private body including companies and any individual. Where a measure is horizontal directly effective it creates rights between citizens and is therefore enforceable by them in national court. As a result, the distinction between the two can be critical in determine whether or not a citizen is able to enforce the law and has an action where there is a breach of EC law Having established that treaty articles can have horizontal as well as vertical direct effect, i.e. they can be relied upon not only against the sate but also against individuals (case Defernne v Saberna (1976) the question then arose whether the same could apply to directives. Directives however are addressed to the member state and must be implemented by them. In case (Marshall v Southampton area health authority (1986) (John Fairhurst 2010), the court pointed out that directives are only binding on the member state to whom they are addressed and that therefore a directive may not of itself, impose obligations on an individual and may not be relied upon as such against a person. In Marshall v Southampton the applicant was dismissed at age 60 whereas male employees could retire at 65. National legislation did not prohibit employers from discriminated on the grounds of sex in retirement matters. The applicant contended that the treatment was in breach of an EU Directive. It was held that the Directive could only be directly effective as against the State, and not against a private person, e.g. a non-state employer.(horizontal direct effect).This rule was late confirmed in the case of Faccini Dori v Recreb [1995] (Margot Horspool2010) The Francovich principle was used by Ms Dori who relied on a Council Directive (that had not become part of Italian law) to withdraw from an English language course. The Directive allowed consumers to cancel contracts within seven days if the contract had been made away from business premises - in this case at railway station. Mss Dori could not rely on the Directive against a private body but that she should be able to gain compensation from the Italian state. From this moment its where the drawbacks to the EU law started. The refusal of the ECJ to extend the direct effect of Directives to horizontal situations means that even if the conditions for direct are satisfied, the individual will not be able to rely on the Directive in proceedings against another individual. Though individuals can only enforce their rights where the other party is the State. This may lead to circumstances in which individuals who find themselves in very similar situations, but there is a difference for example in that one is employed by the State whereas the other is employed by a private company, do not benefit to the same extent from the enforceability of EU rights. This can hardly be described as satisfactory. To overcome with some of the problem which was caused by the denial of horizontal direct effect, the ECJ has tried to developed many different strategy to reduce the impact of the horizontal rule. The first thing they did is they expanded the notion of public body against which directives could be enforced. As in the Marshall case it ruled out the direct enforceability of directive against individual. The court justification for allowing the vertical direct effect of directives against organs of the state is not based upon the responsibility of the particular sate organ (such as a health authority) for failure to implement the directive pleaded. Further the court said that not only the courts but even state organs and domestic administrations which play no part in formal implementation of European legislation are bound to apply the provisions of directives in practice something which has been referred to as administrative direct effect. This expansion was made in the case of Fratelli Costanzo Spa v. Comune di Milano (1989) where it was said "when the conditions under which the Court has

held that individuals may rely on the provisions of a directive before the national courts are met, all organs of the administration, including decentralized authorities such as municipalities, are obliged to apply those provisions." The board interpretation of what constitutes an organ of the state for the purpose of enforcement of directives seems at odd with the refusal to extend their direct enforceability to relations between non-state entities and individuals. Further, although the ECJ elaborated somewhat on the community meaning of the state or public body for the purposes of the enforceability of directives it has been criticized for failing in key decision to provide adequate guidance on complex issue. In 1990 the foster case decided what remains the primary ruling on the matter.in the case of Foster v British gas plc 1990 which involved the employees retirement age as women was 60 and men was 65. The court said that "a body, which has been responsible for providing a public service under the control of the State and has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals, is included in any event among the bodies against which the provisions of a directive capable of having direct effect may be relied upon." This case also defined what the court means by state. (Ewan Kirk2010) The ECJ has adopted to limit the consequences of the lack of horizontal direct effect for Directives is to establish the principle of indirect effect. This principle was first set out in the cases of Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen and Harz v Deutsche .In both of these cases the female complainants had been the victims of discrimination in breach of the Equal Treatment Directive. The ECJ noted Article 4(3) TFEU (then Art 10 EC) which required Member States to take all appropriate measures to give effect to EU law. In Von Colson it was noted that the national courts are an organ of the State. It was held that the national courts are required to interpret the wording of the national law in light of the Directive so as to interpret national law in requirement with EU law as far as it is possible to do so. Having established the principle of indirect effect, which requires the national courts to interpret national legislation in line with the Directive in question, the next issue for the ECJ was to determine whether this principle would apply even in horizontal cases between individuals. The answer to this question was provided in Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacionale de Alimentacion SA. In this case a Spanish court was confronted with a national law which conflicted with a particular Directive which had not been implemented in Spain. It was found that the interpretive obligation applied in horizontal cases and also that it did not matter whether the national law in question pre or postdated the Directive. However, the interpretive obligation will only apply after the time limit for implementing the Directive has expired. (Chris Turner2010) Even though with so many changes made to vertical direct effect there will always be some views which still not agree with it even though there has been so many aspects to try widen the scope of the direct effect. For a while, the academic argument as to the significance of Marleasing was polarised. Writers such as (Robert Schtze,2010) Smith, de Burca, Mercer and Prechal advanced arguments that the obligation was extremely wide and that, as a result of the case, virtually all conflicting national provisions would have to be interpreted in accordance with Directives. On the other hand, Maltby said that as the obligation only exists so far as is possible: it is far narrower than the other writers suggested and only exists where there are quite genuinely two possible ways in which to interpret the national legislation, one which accords with the Directive and one which does not. In that situation there is an obligation on the national court to give a Community interpretation.

One of the other things which have been questioned is that how in some odd cases people may use horizontal and there involve incidental. This was in the case of Mangold it involved age discrimination and those are allowed the general principles of law to be directly enforced against private parties. At its widest, Mangold allowed a particular Directive to be directly enforced against private parties on the basis that it embodied the general principle of non-discrimination. In this case it was granted as these are breaking the original EU law Directive so that was the law broken and in those cases horizontal direct effect can be used. In conclusion, it would indeed make more sense for the courts to accord horizontal direct effects to Directives. The arguments against doing so are weak, and doing so would allow for a greater degree of legal certainty and the provision of just results without the need to resort to elaborate strategies designed to avoid the consequences of the rule against horizontal direct effects of Directives. Overall the law of EU did take a set back from the Marshall when it denied the horizontal direct effect but it has been making improvements and developments in law.

Bibliography:
Chris Turner and Jacqueline Martin, EU Law (Key Facts) ,2011 Ewan Kirk,Law Express: EU Law,2012 John Fairhurst , Law of the European Union , 2010 Margot Horspool and Matthew Humphreys , European Union Law , 2012 Michael Cuthbert , Q&A European Union Law 2013-2014 , 2012 Nigel Foster, EU Law Directions , 2012 Nigel Foster, EU Law Directions , 2010 Paul Craig , Grinne de Brca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials,2011 Robert Schtze , The Indirect Effect of European Law , 2011 Stephen Weatherill, Cases and Materials on EU Law , 2010 Tomasz KRAMER , Main characteristics of EU Law , 2011

Table of Cases
Defrenne v Sabena (1976) Faccini Dori v Recreb [1995] Fratelli Costanzo Spa v. Comune di Milano (1989) foster v British gas plc 1990 Harz v Deutsche (1984) Marshall v Southampton area health authority (1986), Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacionale de Alimentacion (1990) Mangold v Helm (2005) van gend en loos v Nederlandse (1963) Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (1984)

Reflective journal What did I learn from producing the coursework?

While doing this assignment I have learned a lot of different things such as time management was one of the most important things during this assignment as I had 1 other assignment around the same time and I had to make sure that I did manage my time the best so that I will finish my assignment. I also learned that the topic of EU law is very wide and that it covered topics which I didnt know that it would cover. I have also learned that there are many consideration and implementation to get to the law to where it is now and there have to be many changes to the first part. Motivation was another factor for the success of this assignment as I had to make sure that I kept going and that I finished this assignment. I did gain many different skills from doing this assignment one of them was the different methods of researching and finding different information on different topics.

What problems did I encounter when completing the assignment (if any) ?
One of the main problems that I encounter is to understanding the question completely as it was not a very easy to understand the EU assignment as the level of its complex and at the first it was very hard to understand the question of the assignment. There was also the problem of writing and cutting the words amount of down as there was so much to write down and it was hard to get the write amount of words and its very hard to write all of that information in this assignment and it was very hard to do that. For this assignment I had to change the way I did research and the things I did and the amount of things I write. I had to try to write all the information and try to minimise it and try to write down in and try to fit it in the assignment.

What would I do differently next time and what would have enabled me to do a better job?
If I did this project again I would do try do something differently I would try to gather more expert information and I will try to get information on and I would try to find what people thought was going to happen in the future was going to happen with the EU law . If I did this project again I might have tried to add more information and tried to add a bit more specific details in to some of the topics which I have done. I would have liked to try to add more information in some specific areas. There was areas which I could have add but I had no space to them details. I would have liked to add different views of different countries outside EU to see if the different views and to see the effects that they had been and what is their thoughts and judges reaction view.

When completing the assignment, which learning outcomes did I find easiest / perform best at ?
The part that I found the easiest was getting the information and writing it down as there seemed to be a lot to write about and the information was out there and it seemed to be easy to find and the information was very easy to find and that was a very good thing. So it was easy to find the information as there would have been loads of that same information.

When completing the assignment, which learning outcomes did I find most difficult / perform worst at ?
What I found the hardest in this assignment was the wide range of information available that was available to me. I mean it was a good thing and bad thing that was a main problem is that it was so much information out there to gather from and it was hard to try to fit all the information in the essay itself. I think I might have missed some parts of the assignment out.

Do I honestly believe that I have performed to the best of my ability ?

I do believe I did perform to my best and I think I gave it all to my best ability. I always believe that there is a room for improvement so if I did this again I would think I can improve more because I think that no work I give is perfect. I can always improve. I also dont know if I did perform my best as this was my first time doing EU law assignment and so I dont know if I have done my best. But I do think I have giving my entire all in this assignment