C-46/93, C-48/93. These cases followed earlier decisions of the ECJ, in which it had been held that member states had been in breach of their obligations under EU law. The question to be determined was whether a specific remedy should be available to the affected individuals. The member states argued that the ECTreaty did not create a general right to reparation for individuals who had suffered loss as a result of member states' breaches of EU law -- such a right could only be creaed by legislation. However, the ECJ held that its duty under Art. 200 was to see that ``the law is observed'', and this meant that it should apply the same principles as were common to the member states in stipulating a remedy.
See StateLiabilityUnderEULaw for discussion.
Law glossary index
©1994-2006 Kevin Boone, all rights reserved