))
'The Familiapress Dilemma: The Horizontal Application, Horizontal Direct Effect and Horizontal Enforcement of the Free Movement Provisions': CELS Seminar
Manage episode 454969088 series 3623336
Content provided by Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, Faculty of Law, and University of Cambridge. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, Faculty of Law, and University of Cambridge or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
Speaker: Professor Barend van Leeuwen, Durham University
Abstract: What do we mean when we talk about the "horizontal direct effect" of the free movement provisions? You would think that, after decades of case law on the free movement provisions, the meaning of this concept should be relatively clear and crystallised. However, there is still a significant amount of disagreement about the very meaning of the concept of "horizontal direct effect". While some EU lawyers speak of horizontal direct effect when the free movement provisions are applied in a dispute between private parties (a procedural approach), other EU lawyers will only refer to horizontal direct effect when the rule or conduct that is being challenged is of a private nature (a substantive approach). This paper will analyse these different interpretations of the concept of horizontal direct effect through the lens of the "Familiapress dilemma". It will be argued that a distinction should be made between horizontal direct effect cases (in which private rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties) and horizontal enforcement cases (in which State rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties). The problem with a procedural approach to horizontal direct effect is that no connection is made between direct effect and the question of who is held responsible (and liable) for breaches of the free movement provisions. This makes it more difficult to provide effective judicial protection to victims of breaches of free movement law, because it is unclear who should ultimately "pay the bill". Against this background, it will be argued that the CJEU should develop more explicit techniques or "formulas" to allocate responsibility in free movement cases. In parallel, the CJEU should improve the effectiveness of the remedies of State liability and private liability for breaches of the free movement provisions.
For more information see:
https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series
164 episodes
Share
