Causation in francovich: The neglected problem

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 925-941

  Smith, Fiona ^a   Woods, Lorna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013201554     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300061273     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. The Francovich remedy could be seen as merely a gap-filling exercise to allow the individual to obtain a remedy for the non-implementation of a non-directly effective directive: note the German, Irish and Netherlands' argument in Joined Cases C-46 and 48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v. Federal Republic of Germany and R. v. Secretary of State, ex p. Factortame Ltd (Factortame (III) [1996] E.C.R. 1–1029, para.18; this was firmly disregarded by the Court at para.19.
2. There is copious academic literature on this subject, inter alia: Steiner, “From Direct Effect to Francovich” (1993) 19 E.L.Rev. 3;
3. Caranta, “Governmental Liability after Francovich” [1993] C.LJ. 272;
4. Ross, “Beyond Francovich” (1993) 56 M.L.R. 55;
5. Craig, “Francovich, Remedies and the Scope of Damages Liability” (1993) 109 L.Q.R. 595;
6. Bebr, “Francovich v. Italy, Boniface v. Italy” (1992) 29 C.M.L.Rev. 559;
7. Curtin, “State Liability under Private Law: A New Remedy for Private Parties” (1992) 21 1.LJ. 74.
8. R. v. HM Treasury, ex p. BT [1996] E.C.R. 1–1631 and Case C-5/94
9. R. v. MAFF, ex p. Hedley Lomas [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 391;
10. Cases C-178/94, 179/94, 188/94, 189/94 and 190/94, Dillenkofer v. Germany [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 469.
11. Wooldridge and D'Sa, “ECJ Decides Factortame (111) and Brasserie du Picheur” (1996) 7 E.B.L.R. 161;
12. Emiliou, “State Liability under Community Law: Shedding More Light on the Francovich Principle” (1996) 21 E.L.Rev. 399;
13. Van Gerven, “Bridging the Unbridgeable: Community and National Tort Laws after Francovich and Brasserie” (1996) 45 I.C.L.Q. 507.
14. see Ross, “Redefining Effective Enjoyment” (1990) 15 E.L.Rev. 476.
15. see Heukels, Casenote on Van Schijndel (1996) 33 C.M.L.Rev. 337;
16. Case C-2/94, Denkavit [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 504.
17. See Van Schijndel, C.M.L.R.
18. Cf. Case C-213/89, R. v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex p. Factortame [1990] E.C.R. 1–2433;
19. Case C-208/90, Emmott [1991] E.C.R. 1–4269;
20. cf. Case C-338/91, Steenhorst Neerings [1993] E.C.R. 1–5475 and
21. Case C-62/93, BP Supergas v. Hellenic Republic [1995] E.C.R. 1–1883;
22. Case C-221/89, Factortame [1991] E.C.R. 1–3905:
23. The test acts as a filter to reduce the number of claims which the national court has to adjudicate and, second, the content of those rules is dictated by substantive questions of law: see Williams, “Causation in the Law” [1961] C.LJ. 62;
24. McGregor, “Variations on the Enigma” (1970) 33 M.L.R. 378;
25. Boon, “Causation and the Increase of Risk” (1988) 51 M.L.R. 508;
26. Stapleton, “The Gist of Negligence” (1988) 104 L.Q.R. 389;
27. Price, “Causation: the Lords' Lost Chance?” (1989) 381. C.L.Q. 735.
28. However, see Denkavit, C.L.Q., for an attempt by A.G. Jacobs to correlate the two notions.
29. Markesinis and Deakin, Law of Tort (3rd edn, 1995).
30. See also Hoskins, “Tilting the Balance: Supremacy and National Procedural Rules” (19%) 21 E.L.Rev. 365.
31. See Szyszczak, “European Community Law: New Remedies, New Directions?” (1992) 55 M.L.R. 399.
32. also Szyszczak, “Making Europe More Relevant to its Citizens” (19%) 21 E.L.Rev. 351.
33. Scotland has its own separate legal system which has different rules for non-contractual liability: see Philips, “Lost Chances in Delict: All or Nothing?” (1995) 5 Juridical Rev. 401.
34. See Winfield and Jolowitz, Markesinis and Deakin
35. see R. Cross and J. W. Harris, Precedent in English Law (4th edn, 1991).
36. This can be the case with causation: see Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd, The Wagon Mound (No.l) [1961] 1 All E.R. 404 (PC).
37. Harvey v. Institute of the Motor Industry (No.2) [1995] I.R.L.R. 416.
38. This was held to be the case despite the fact that the State was the sole shareholder in a public company. The company was deemed to be dealing at arm's length with the State, and therefore should be liable for any breach: Doughty v. Rolls-Royce [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 1045.
39. McGhee v. National Coal Board [1972] 3 All E.R. 1008, 1011 (per Lord Reid).
40. Note R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Gallagher [1996] 2 C.M.L.R. 957 on the application of the State liability principles.
41. Barnet v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management [1968] 2 W.L.R. 422.
42. Wilsher v. Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 2 W.L.R. 557.
43. see also Weinrib, “A Step Forward in Factual Causation” (1975) 38 M.L.R. 518.
44. On States' obligations in regard to Community legislation, see Wyatt and Dashwood, EC Law (1993), chap.4.
45. also E. Steyger, Europe and its Members: A Constitutional Approach (1995), pp. 16–19.
46. However, liability of the member State may be problematic following a return to a more formalistic interpretation of Art.90(l) in Case C-2/91, Meng [1993] E.C.R. 1–5751; see Reich, “The ‘November Revolution’ of the Court of Justice: Keck, Meng and Audi Revisited” (1994) 31 C.M.L.Rev. 459.
47. [1987] 2 All E.R. 908 (HL)
48. cf. Chaplin v. Hick [1911] 2 K.B. 786
49. confirmed by Allied Maples Group plc v. Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1602, 1610 (per Stuart-Smith LJ).
50. Hill, “A Lost Chance for Compensation in the Tort of Negligence by the House of Lords” (1991) 54 M.L.R. 511, 511;
51. Lunney, “What Price a Chance?” (1995) 15 L.S. 1;
52. Rees, “Loss of Chance in the Law” (1996) 59 M.L.R. 188.
53. Hotson v. East Berkshire AHA [1987] 1 All E.R. 210, 223 (CA).
54. See Davies, “The Road From Morocco: Polemis Through Donoghue to No-Fault” (1982) 45 M.L.R. 534;
55. Wagon Mound, M.L.R., and
56. Tremain V. Pike [1969] 3 W.L.R. 1556.
57. See also Zweigert and Kotz, Introduction to Comparative Law, Vol.11 (2nd edn, 1987).
58. Also A.G. Tesauro in Factortame (III), Introduction to Comparative Law, para.97.
59. Wafer Zoo v. Commission [1995] E.C.R. H-1479.
60. Cases C-363 and 4/88, Finsider v. Commission [1992] E.C.R. 1–359.
61. e.g. Case 310/81, EISS v. Commission [1984] E.C.R. 1341, Case 239/78
62. Dumortier Frires [1979] E.C.R. 3091, and Case T-168/94
63. Blackspur DIY Limited v. Council [1995] E.C.R. 11–2628 (Blackspur has appealed).
64. Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90, Mulder and Others v. Commission [1992] E.C.R. 1–3061, para∼33.
65. Case 169/73, Compagnie Continental [1975] E.C.R. 117.
66. Case 5m, Aktien Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v. Council [1971] E.C.R. 975. The ECJ held that liability does not arise in the case of legislative action involving measures of economic policy, “unless a sufficiently flagrant violation of a superior rule of Law for the protection of the individual has occurred”: para.ll.
67. e.g. Case T-572/93, Odigritria v. Council [1995] E.C.R. II-2025;
68. Cases C-258 and 259/90, Pesquerias De Bermeo & Naviera Laida v. Commission [1992] E.C.R. 1–2901.
69. This approach was suggested in Stavely Iron and Chemical Co. v. Jones [1956] A.C. 607, 628 (per Lord Tucker).