Francovich v Italy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Francovich v Italy

European Court of Justice

Submitted 8 January 1990

Decided 19 November 1991

Full case Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and

name others v Italian Republic.

Case
C-6/90
number

ECLI ECLI:EU:C:1991:428

Case Type Reference for a preliminary ruling

Chamber Full court

Nationality
Italy
of parties

Pretura di Bassano del Grappa, Sezione

lavoro, ordinanza del 30 December 1989,
Pretura di Bassano del Grappa, Sezione
lavoro, sentenza del 9 July 1992 3 August
1992 (273/92), Pretura circondariale di
Bassano del Grappa, sentenza del 9
Procedural December 1993 (162/93), Pretura
history circondariale di Bassano del Grappa,
ordinanza del 21 March 1995 (839 RG
162/93), Pretura di Vicenza, Sezione lavoro,
ordinanza del 9 July 1989 10 July 1989
(1186/89), Pretura circondariale di Vicenza,
Sezione lavoro, ordinanza del 16 December
1993 (206/93 (1186/89))

Ruling

1. The provisions of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20

October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the protection of employees in
the event of the insolvency of their employer which
determine the rights of employees must be interpreted as
meaning that the persons concerned cannot enforce those
rights against the State before the national courts where
no implementing measures are adopted within the
prescribed period;

2. A Member State is required to make good loss and

damage caused to individuals by failure to transpose
Directive 80/987/EEC.

Court composition

Judge-Rapporteur
Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias

Advocate General
Jean Mischo

Francovich v Italy (1991) C-6/90 was a decision of the European Court of Justice which
established that European Union member states could be liable to pay compensation to
individuals who suffered a loss by reason of the member state's failure to transpose an EU
directive into national law. It is sometimes known as the principle of state liability in
European Union law.

Contents

 1 Facts

 2 Judgment

 3 See also

 4 Notes

 5 External links

Facts

Under the Insolvency Protection Directive 80/987 (now 2008/94/EC) EU member states were
expected to enact provisions in their national law to give a minimum level insurance for
employees who had wages unpaid if their employers went insolvent. Mr Francovich, who
had worked in Venice for CDN Elettronica SnC, was owed 6 million Lira, and Mr Bonifaci and
33 of his colleagues were owed 253 million Lira together after their company, Gaia
Confezioni Srl, had gone bankrupt. The Directive was meant to be implemented by 1983, but
five years later they had been paid nothing, as the company liquidators had informed them
that no money was left. They brought a claim against the Italian state, arguing that it must
pay damages to compensate for their losses instead, on account of a failure to implement
the Directive.

Judgment

The European Court of Justice held that the Italian government had breached its obligations,
and was liable to compensate the workers' loss resulting from the breach. The Court further
held that the damages for such breaches should be available before national courts, and that
to establish state liability on the basis of the failure to implement a directive, claimants must
prove that the directive conferred specific rights on them, identifiable in its wording, and
that there is a causal link between the state's failure to implement the directive and the loss
suffered.

“ 31 It should be borne in mind at the outset that the EEC Treaty has created its own
legal system, which is integrated into the legal systems of the Member States and
which their courts are bound to apply. The subjects of that legal system are not only
the Member States but also their nationals. Just as it imposes burdens on individuals,
Community law is also intended to give rise to rights which become part of their
legal patrimony. Those rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the
Treaty but also by virtue of obligations which the Treaty imposes in a clearly defined
manner both on individuals and on the Member States and the Community
institutions (see the judgments in Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1 and
Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585).

32 Furthermore, it has been consistently held that the national courts whose task it
is to apply the provisions of Community law in areas within their jurisdiction must
ensure that those rules take full effect and must protect the rights which they confer
on individuals (see in particular the judgments in Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle
Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629, paragraph 16, and Case C-213/89
Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433, paragraph 19).

33 The full effectiveness of Community rules would be impaired and the protection
of the rights which they grant would be weakened if individuals were unable to
obtain redress when their rights are infringed by a breach of Community law for
which a Member State can be held responsible.

34 The possibility of obtaining redress from the Member State is particularly

indispensable where, as in this case, the full effectiveness of Community rules is
subject to prior action on the part of the State and where, consequently, in the
absence of such action, individuals cannot enforce before the national courts the
rights conferred upon them by Community law.

35 It follows that the principle whereby a State must be liable for loss and damage
caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community law for which the State
can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the Treaty.