Direct/indirect effect of directives:

C-122/17, David Smith v Patrick Meade and Others

 Direct effect is a principle in EU law that allows individuals to
directly rely on EU law before their national courts.
 This means that if a provision of EU law is clear, precise, and
unconditional, individuals can enforce their rights based on
that provision in their own national courts, without the need for
the State to pass a law to implement it. It's like a shortcut for
people to use EU law to protect their rights in their own country.

 Indirect effect is a legal principle in the EU law that requires

national courts to interpret national law in a way that is
consistent with EU law
This principle applies when national law is unclear or
ambiguous and the national court is required to interpret it
The national court must interpret the national law in a way that
gives effect to the relevant provisions of EU law
The principle of indirect effect is based on the idea that EU law has
primacy over national law

FACTS
The case of David Smith v Patrick Meade and Others is a legal matter
that was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU). The case involved a request for a preliminary ruling from the
Court of Appeal in Ireland regarding the approximation of laws on
insurance against civil liability. The proceedings concerned
compensation for injuries suffered by David Smith as a result of a road
traffic accident. The specific legal issue revolved around the
applicability of a directive in a dispute exclusively between private
persons.
LEGAL ISSUE
The legal issue at the heart of the case David Smith v Patrick Meade
and Others was the interpretation of the applicability of a directive
in a dispute exclusively between private persons.
Specifically, the case raised the question of whether a directive can
be relied upon as such against an individual in a dispute
exclusively between private persons.
Answer:
 The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that a directive
cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and
cannot therefore be relied upon as such against an individual.

 Even a clear, precise, and unconditional provision of a directive

seeking to confer rights on or impose obligations on individuals
cannot of itself apply in a dispute exclusively between private
persons.

 A national court is obliged to set aside a provision of national

law that is contrary to a directive only where that directive is
relied on against a Member State, or organisations or bodies
to perform a task in the public interest and, for that purpose,
possess special powers beyond those which result from the
normal rules applicable to relations between individuals.

 Party adversely affected by the incompatibility of national law

with EU law or a person subrogated to the rights of that party
could however rely on the case-law stemming from the
judgment of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others , in
order to obtain from the Member State, if appropriate,
compensation for any loss sustained.