The Historical Archives of the European Union (HAEU) has digitalised 328 procedural files from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The files are available for consultation under special access conditions, in the Archives’ online database. The files pertain to cases referred to the Court in 1990.
The 1990 cases resulted in a number of important decisions in the application of European Union law, establishing or strengthening precedent on issues such as state liability, the direct effect of European Law, and the supremacy of EU law. Two such cases, which also highlight the role of citizens in holding national governments accountable for complying with EU obligations to guarantee their individual rights, are summarised below.
Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic
In Francovich v. Italy (Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90; ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1991:428), the Court addressed questions raised by the Pretura di Vicenza (in Case C-6/90) and the Pretura di Bassano del Grappa (in Case C-9/90) concerning the direct effect of EU law and state liability for damages to individuals due to its failure to implement EU law.
The questions stemmed from two cases in Italy relevant to Council Directive 80/987, intended to protect workers’ rights in the event of their employers’ insolvency. The directive required member states to ensure that workers would be compensated for unpaid wages in the case that their employer went bankrupt.
In the cases at hand, the workers were unable to claim their compensation as guaranteed by Council Directive 80/987 because Italy had not yet transposed it into national law. The workers argued that Italy’s failure to comply with the EU directive denied them the possibility to claim the compensation to which they were entitled under EU law.
In the judgment, the Court ruled in favour of the workers. The judges reaffirmed the direct effect of EU law, meaning that individuals can rely on EU law directly in national courts to claim their rights if an EU directive is not adequately transposed into national law. It also clarified the principle of state liability, stating that “a State must be liable for loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which the State can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the Treaty”. Moreover, in its judgment, the Court defined the conditions for state liability, stipulating that the EU rule must grant rights to individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious, and that there be a direct link between the breach and the damage.
By holding states liable for damages to individuals due to the failure to effectively transpose EU directives into national legal systems, the Francovich ruling can be seen as a decision that strengthened workers rights, individual rights, and the rule of law across the EU.
Emmott v. Minister for Social Welfare
Another interesting case among the newly available procedure files is Emmott v. Minister for Social Welfare (Case C-208/90; ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1991:333), which had bearing on both the supremacy of EU law and the principle of direct effect. The question of concern in this ruling dealt with whether national courts must apply or disregard national laws when those laws contradict EU regulations.
In the case, Mrs. Emmott, a married woman, claimed a family allowance from the Irish government. According to EU law, Council Directive 79/7 of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, Irish law should have allowed her to receive the benefit, as the regulation governing family allowances applied across all EU member states. However, at the time, the Irish law did not fully comply with EU law and Emmot was denied the level of benefit at the time ascribed to married men. Emmott's case raised the question of whether the Irish authorities could refuse her benefit, despite her entitlement to it according to EU law, which prohibited discrimination based on sex.
With this judgment, the Court rules that when there is a conflict between national law and EU law, the national courts must give precedence to EU law. Thus, if an EU regulation or directive gives individuals specific rights, national governments must respect and enforce those rights, even if their own laws would normally contradict them. This reinforced the supremacy of EU law. Moreover, it demonstrated the direct effect of EU law. That is, individuals may take advantage of rights engendered by EU law and directly invoke EU law before national and European courts, independently of whether the national law test exists.
As for Francovich, the Emmott v. Minister case strengthened the legal framework for citizens across the EU, ensuring that EU law is consistently applied, even in the face of contradictory national laws.
The historical archives of the Court at the HAEU
Researchers may consult the historical archives of the European Court of Justice under special access conditions. The inventory of holdings for the CJEU is available here.