Using a Directive as a “Shield” Rather Than a “Sword” in Horizontal Relations: Does This Concept Make Sense in the Light of the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 January 2022 C-261/20 Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN?

Edyta Całka

Abstract


This study of a scientific and research nature concerns one of the general principles of EU law, namely the principle of direct applicability. The publication contributes to a long-standing discussion on the direct effect of directives as secondary EU legislation. The main objective of the paper is to present the application of directives in the context of horizontal relations. This problem is of fundamental importance for explaining the mechanisms of direct application of the directives that have not been properly implemented in the national legal orders. Although in previous case law the Court of Justice had essentially opted against the concept of direct horizontal effect of directives, the issue in question, for its complexity, was again examined in one of the most recent preliminary rulings, case C-261/20 Thelen Technopark. Referring to that judgment, the author analyses the possibility of using a directive as a “shield” in the judicial application of law with an aim to eliminate a national law provision inconsistent with the directive from the rationale of the judicial decision. In particular, it concerns the possibility for directives to act in horizontal relations in such a manner that boils down to excluding the application of a provision of national law which is incompatible with it. The question of the possible use of directives as a “shield” is also examined from a slightly different perspective, namely from the point of view of the individual and the possibility to invoke a directive by the individual in the main proceedings where another individual wishes to cause an obligation be imposed on the former under the national law inconsistent with the directive. This problem, as can be argued, is ultimately resolved by the Court of Justice in case C-261/20 Thelen Technopark, which states that a national court hearing a dispute between individuals over a claim based on a national provision contrary to a directive is not required to disapply that provision solely on the basis of EU law.


Keywords


EU law; direct effect of directives; effect of directives in horizontal relations; subjective and objective direct effect; application of national provisions contravening a directive

Full Text:

PDF

References


LITERATURE

Becker F., Campbell A., The Direct Effect of European Directives: Towards the Final Act?, “Columbia Journal of European Law” 2017, vol. 13.

Brzeziński P., Stosowanie pozytywne i negatywne dyrektywy unijnej pomiędzy podmiotowymi prywatnymi, “Europejski Przegląd Sądowy” 2010, vol. 8.

Całka E., Oznaczenia naturalnych wód mineralnych, wód źródlanych i wód stołowych. Studium z prawa Unii Europejskiej i prawa polskiego, Warszawa 2019.

Całka E., Zasada pierwszeństwa w prawie Unii Europejskiej. Wybrane problemy, “Studia Iuridica Lublinensia” 2016, vol. 25(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2016.25.1.47.

Craig P., Búrca G. de, EU Law, Text, Cases, and Materials, Oxford 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198856641.001.0001.

Dąbrowski M., Assessment of the Correct Implementation of Article 4 of Directive 2008/52/EC of 21 May 2008 on Some Aspects of Mediation in Civil and Commercial Matters in the Polish Legal System, “Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem” 2022, vol. 14(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.537.

Domańska M., Implementacja dyrektyw unijnych przez sądy krajowe, Warszawa 2014.

Figueroa Regueiro P.V., Invocability of Substitution and Invocability of Exclusion: Bringing Legal Realism to the Current Developments of the Case-Law of “Horizontal” Direct Effect of Directives, “Jean Monnet Working Paper” 2002, no. 7.

Kalisz A., [in:] System Prawa Unii Europejskiej, vol. 3: Wykładnia prawa Unii Europejskiej, ed. L. Leszczyński, Warszawa 2019.

Kamiński M., Bezpośrednie i pośrednie stosowanie dyrektyw unijnych przez polskie sądy administracyjne, “Przegląd Sądowy” 2011, no. 1.

Kunkiel-Kryńska A., Implementacja dyrektyw opartych na zasadzie harmonizacji pełnej na przykładzie dyrektywy o nieuczciwych praktykach handlowych, “Monitor Prawniczy” 2007, no. 18.

Lenaerts K., Arts D., Procedural Law of the European Union, London 1999.

Lenz M., Sif Tynes D., Young L., Horizontal What? Back to Basics, “European Law Review” 2000, vol. 25.

Maśnicki J., Bezpośredni skutek dyrektyw w relacjach triangularnych, “Europejski Przegląd Sądowy” 2017, vol. 3.

Maśnicki J., Metody transpozycji dyrektyw, “Europejski Przegląd Sądowy” 2017, vol. 8.

Miąsik D., Wkład SN RP w rozwój zasad prawa Unii Europejskiej – próba oceny na przykładzie pytań prejudycjalnych, [in:] In Varietate Concordia. Księga Jubileuszowa Profesora Ryszarda Skubisza, Warszawa 2022.

Miąsik D., Szwarc M., Stosowanie prawa Unii Europejskiej przez sędziów sądów powszechnych i prokuratorów, Warszawa 2012.

Prechal S., Directives in EC Law, Oxford 2005.

Prechal S., Does Direct Effect Still Matter?, “Common Market Law Review” 2000, vol. 37(5), DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/274964.

Ruffert M., Rights and Remedies in European Community Law: A Comparative View, “Common Market Law Review” 1997, vol. 34(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/134197.

Schweitzer M., Hummer W., Obwexer W., Europarecht, Wien 2007.

Skubisz R., [in:] System Prawa Prywatnego, vol. 14A: Prawo własności przemysłowej, ed. R. Skubisz, Warszawa 2017.

Sołtys A., Cechy i charakter prawa Unii Europejskiej, [in:] System Prawa Unii Europejskiej, vol. 1: Podstawy i źródła prawa Unii Europejskiej, ed. S. Biernat, Warszawa 2020.

Sołtys A., Relacja zasady bezpośredniego skutku i zasady pierwszeństwa prawa Unii Europejskiej w świetle najnowszego orzecznictwa Trybunału Sprawiedliwości, “Europejski Przegląd Sądowy” 2022, vol. 6.

Szpunar M., Bezpośredni skutek prawa wspólnotowego – jego istota oraz próba uporządkowania terminologii, “Europejski Przegląd Sądowy” 2005, vol. 2.

Szpunar M., Odpowiedzialność podmiotu prywatnego z tytułu naruszenia prawa wspólnotowego, Warszawa 2008.

Szpunar M., Wybrane problemy stosowania prawa Unii Europejskiej w stosunkach cywilnoprawnych, “Prawo w Działaniu. Sprawy Cywilne” 2014, vol. 20.

Szwarc-Kuczer M., [in:] Stosowanie prawa Unii Europejskiej przez sądy, vol. 2: Zasady, orzecznictwo, piśmiennictwo, eds M. Szwarc-Kuczer, K. Kowalik-Bańczyk, Warszawa 2007.

Szwarc-Kuczer M., Zasada bezpośredniej skuteczności prawa wspólnotowego – wprowadzenie i wyrok ETS z 26.02.1986 r. w sprawie 152/84 M.H. Marshall przeciwko Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Autority (Teaching), “Europejski Przegląd Sądowy” 2007, vol. 5.

Taborowski M., Procedura orzeczeń wstępnych, [in:] Unia Europejska. Prawo instytucjonalne i gospodarcze, ed. A. Łazowski, Warszawa 2005.

Wróbel A., [in:] Stosowanie prawa Unii Europejskiej przez sądy, ed. A. Wróbel, Kraków 2005.

Wróbel A., Kurcz B., Komentarz do art. 288, [in:] Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej. Komentarz, vol. 3: Art. 223–358, eds. D. Kornobis-Romanowska, J. Łacny, Warszawa 2012.

LEGAL ACTS

Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ L 376/36, 27.12.2006).

Verordnung über die Honorare für Architekten- und Ingenieurleistungen (Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure – HOAI) of 10 July 2013 (BGBl. 2013 I, p. 2276).

CASE LAW

Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963, Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1.

Judgment of the Court of 4 December 1974, Case 41/74, Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office, ECLI:EU:C:1974:133.

Judgment of the Court of 1 February 1977, Case 51/76, Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, ECLI:EU:C:1977:12.

Judgment of the Court of 5 April 1979, Case 148/78, Criminal proceedings against Tullio Ratti, ECLI:EU:C:1979:110.

Judgment of the Court of 19 January 1982, Case 8/81, Ursula Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt, ECLI:EU:C:1982:7.

Judgment of the Court of 26 February 1986, Case 152/84, M.H. Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching), ECLI:EU:C:1986:84.

Judgment of the Court of 22 June 1989, Case 103/88, Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano, ECLI:EU:C:1989:256.

Judgment of the Court of 12 July 1990, Case C-188/89, A. Foster and others v British Gas plc., ECLI:EU:C:1990:313.

Judgment of the Court of 14 July 1994, Case C-91/92, Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl., ECLI:EU:C:1994:292.

Judgment of the Court of 12 March 1996, Case C-441/93, Panagis Pafitis and others v Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados A.E. and others, ECLI:EU:C:1996:92.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 April 1998, Case C-215/97, Barbara Bellone v Yokohama SpA, ECLI:EU:C:1998:189.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 October 2004, joined cases C-397/01 to C-403/01, Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01) and Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV., ECLI:EU:C:2004:584.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009, joined cases C-378/07 to C-380/07, Kiriaki Angelidaki and Others v Organismos Nomarchiakis Autodioikisis Rethymnis (C-378/07), Charikleia Giannoudi v Dimos Geropotamou (C-379/07) and Georgios Karabousanos and Sofoklis Michopoulos v Dimos Geropotamou (C-380/07), ECLI:EU:C:2009:250.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 January 2010, Case C-555/07, Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG., ECLI:EU:C:2010:21.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013, Case C-425/12, Portgás – Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás SA v Ministério da Agricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, ECLI:EU:C:2013:829.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 August 2018, Case C-122/17, David Smith v Patrick Meade and Others, EU:C:2018:631.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018, joined cases C-569/16 and C-570/16, Stadt Wuppertal v Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v Martina Broßonn, ECLI:EU:C:2018:871.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2019, Case C-193/17, Cresco Investigation GmbH v Markus Achatzi, ECLI:EU:C:2019:43.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019, Case C-573/17, Criminal proceedings v Daniel Adam Popławski, ECLI:EU:C:2019:530.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2019, Case C-377/17, European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2019:562.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 January 2022, Case C-261/20, Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN, ECLI:EU:C:2022:33.

Order of the Court of 6 December 1990, Case C-2/88 Imm., J.J. Zwartveld and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1990:440.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 February 2020, Case C-137/18, Hapeg dresden gmbh v Bayrische Straße 6–8 GmbH & Co. KG, ECLI:EU:C:2020:84.

OPINIONS OF ADVOCATES GENERAL

Opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 26 January 1993, C-271/91, M. Helen Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority, ECLI:EU:C:1993:30.

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 27 January 1994, C-316/93, Nicole Vaneetveld v SA Le Foyer and SA Le Foyer v Fédération des mutualités socialistes et syndicales de la province de Liège, ECLI:EU:C:1994:32.

Opinion of Advocate General Saggio delivered on 16 December 1999, joined cases C-240/98 to C-244/98, Océano Grupo Editorial SA and Salvat Editores SA v Rocío Murciano Quintero and Others, ECLI:EU:C:1999:620.

Opinion of Advocate General Léger delivered on 11 January 2000, Case C-287/98, Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster, ECLI:EU:C:2000:3.

Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 18 January 2000, Case C-343/98, Renato Collino and Luisella Chiappero v. Telecom Italia SpA, EU:C:2000:23.

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 6 May 2003, joined cases C-397/01 to C-403/01, Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01) and Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV., EU:C:2003:245.

Opinion of Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 6 May 2004, Case C-463/01, Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany, ECLI:EU:C:2004:290.

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 13 February 2007, Case C-374/05, Gintec International Import-Export GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV., ECLI:EU:C:2007:93.

Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar delivered on 15 July 2021, Case C-261/20, Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN, ECLI:EU:C:2021:620.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2022.31.4.75-99
Date of publication: 2022-12-28 17:32:59
Date of submission: 2022-09-30 15:56:39


Statistics


Total abstract view - 1141
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 0

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Edyta Całka

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.