The ECJ rejected the contentions that the right to reparation required the introduction of legislation by the EU, and that the availability of damages should be decided, in each case, on the basis of the national law of the State in question.

This was decided by the European Court of Justice ( ECJ ) in joined cases Novartis et al.

In Marshall v Southampton and South West Area Health Authority ( Teaching ) ( No 1 ), the ECJ ruled that while directives could also have direct effect, they could only do so in respect of public bodies.

In Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority the ECJ held that although a speech therapist being paid less than male counterparts could not be justified only on the ground that this resulted from different collective agreements, if a disparity came from market forces, this was an objective justification.

As such, Directives are currently only vertically directly effective ( i. e. against the state, a concept interpreted broadly by the ECJ, including state schools and other " emanations of the state ").

The early jurisprudence of the ECJ suggested that ' direct effect ' was a consequence of direct applicability as it was thought that the drafters of the original treaty intended regulations, and only regulations, to be directly effective.

Direct applicability is now taken to mean that regulations require no domestic implementation-if direct effect was only ever intended to be a consequence of direct applicability then the relationship has been severed by a series of ECJ cases.

In Baumbast, however, the ECJ held that ( the then ) Article 18 of the EC Treaty granted a generally applicable right to residency, which is limited by secondary legislation, but only where that secondary legislation is proportionate.

ECJ cases C-195 / 09 and C-427 / 09 effectively ruled that SPCs for medicaments ( human or veterinary ) are only available for those “ products ” that:

The European Court of Justice ( ECJ ) has adopted the concept in its own jurisprudence concerning the free movement of goods within the European Internal Market.

In a landmark case, the European Court of Justice ( ECJ ) ruled on 5 July 1994 against the British practice of importing produce from northern Cyprus based on certificates of origin and phytosanitary certificates granted by the de facto authorities.

Where a question of European law is in doubt and there is no appeal from the decision of a court, it is required ( except under the doctrine of acte clair ) to refer the question to the ECJ ; otherwise any referral is entirely at the discretion of the court.

On a reference from the German court, the ECJ ruled that whilst the application of Union law could not depend on its consistency with national constitutions, fundamental rights did form an " integral part of the general principles of Community law " and that inconsistency with fundamental right could form the basis of a successful challenge to a European law.

The ECJ ruled that the scheme infringed then Article 86 ( 1 ), as " undertakings are unable to entrust the management of such a pension scheme to a single insurer and the resulting restriction of competition derives directly from the exclusive right conferred on the sectoral pension fund.

Lord Bridge concluded that as there was no clear authority on this question, a decision from the ECJ was necessary to enable the House of Lords to give judgment.

On 19 June 1990 the ECJ gave its ruling, rephrasing the question posed as " whether a national court which, in a case before it concerning Community law, considers that the sole obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law, must disapply that rule ".

Secondly, the prospects of Factortame succeeding in a full trial of the case once the ECJ had given its ruling on the compatibility of the 1988 Act ; in this regard, the House of Lords took into account indications from the ECJ's first ruling that Factortame's arguments had ' considerable force '.

" In respect of the condition that the vessel should be managed and its operations directed from the UK, the ECJ found, however, that this requirement was compatible with Community law.

Following the ECJ's second ruling, the case returned once more to the Divisional Court which, on 18 November 1992, requested a third ruling from ECJ concerning the conditions under which a Member State may incur liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law attributable to that State.

Where a question of European law is in doubt and there is no appeal from the decision of a court, it is required to refer the question to the ECJ ; otherwise any referral is entirely at the discretion of the court.

Under the ECJ caselaw, the rights of free movement of workers applies regardless of the worker's purpose in taking up employment abroad, to both part-time and full-time work, and whether or not the worker required additional financial assistance from the Member State into which he moves.

In that case, the ECJ ruled that the decisive date for SPC purposes is the date of an authorisation from a regulatory body tasked with assessing safety and efficacy, and not the date of a subsequent authorisation that may be required under national pricing or reimbursement provisions.

If the issue were ever to be debated in a national court, this fact that there are divergent practices across different territories could provide basis for such a court to seek an authoratitive ruling from the ECJ in relation to which of dates ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) should be used for SPCs.

In Libertel Groep v Benelux Merkenbureau ( case C-104 / 01 ) dated May 6, 2003 the ECJ repeats the criteria from Sieckmann v German Patent Office ( case C-273 / 00 ) that graphical representation, preferably means by images, lines or characters, and that the representation must be clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.

The ECJ held that such a privilege was recognized by EC law to a limited extent at least.

The ECJ ruling acknowledged that, under certain circumstances, a person born in part of the UK ( i. e. Northern Ireland ) could not gain citizenship of that nation state, but could gain Irish citizenship, without having ever set foot in the Republic of Ireland, or having any connection with it.

On 29 April 2009, Talat stated that if the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ( that will put the last point in the Orams ' case ) makes a decision just like in the same spirit with the decision of European Court of Justice ( ECJ ) then the Negotiation Process in Cyprus will be damaged in such a way that it will never be repaired once more.

While direct effect was first developed in relation to treaty articles, the ECJ subsequently ruled that regulations and decisions could also have direct effect as well.

In Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein, a case involving VAT, the ECJ ruled that a directive could be directly effective, as they imposed an obligation to achieve a required result.

In Owusu, the English Court of Appeal asked the ECJ whether it could stay a matter brought to it under Article 2 Brussels Convention pursuant to the English FNC rules.

The case illustrates difficulties with the graphical representation of scent marks, as the ECJ held that these representations, whether individually or collectively, could not satisfy this requirement.

It was also foreseen that there would be clauses inserted in bipartite international treaties which would allow the referral of disputes to the ECJ ; this indeed occurred, with such provisions found in treaties between Czechoslovakia and Austria, and between Czechoslovakia and Poland.

The decision to refer a question to the ECJ can be made by the court of its own initiative, or at the request of any of the parties before it.

The ECJ, mostly in cases concerning sex discrimination under TFEU art 157, has held that an employer must show a " real need " for the practice that has disparate impact that is " unrelated " to the protected characteristic, should not involve " generalisations " rather than reasons specific to the workers in question, and budgetary considerations alone are not to be considered an " aim ".

The ECJ held the school would not be acting unlawfully if it did in fact follow its policy.

The ECJ did however insist that demand on the subsidis ’’ ing ’’ market must be met by the state ’ s regime.

The ECJ held the legislation would be contrary to Article 86 where it was excessive and unnecessary to guarantee the provision of services of general economic interest.

As Article 288 TFEU ( ex Art 249 TEC ) explicitly provides that regulations " Shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States " the ECJ has confirmed that they are therefore in principle directly effective stating that " Owing to the their very nature and their place in the system of sources of Union law, regulations operate to confer rights on individuals which the national courts have a duty to protect " If a specific right is conferred therefore a regulation can be both vertically and horizontally directly effective.

As the ECJ held in Becker, another case involving VAT, " wherever the provisions of a directive appear ... to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed period, be relied upon as against any national provision which is incompatible with the directive or insofar as the provisions define rights which individuals are able to assert against the State.

At this time the ECJ had just delivered judgment in Francovich which established the principle that " a State must be liable for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community law ".

The decision to refer a question to the ECJ can be made by the court of its own initiative, or at the request of any of the parties before it.

In C-130 / 11, the ECJ held that an SPC can be granted regardless of the prior marketing of earlier ( veterinary ) medicinal products containing the " product " in question.

As this is precisely the kind of determination that the ECJ had previously been keen for patent offices to avoid, further references to the ECJ may be necessary to clarify precisely which " products " fall within the scope of the SPC legislation and which do not.