Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share 'The Familiapress Dilemma: The Horizontal Application, Horizontal Direct Effect and Horizontal Enforcement of the Free Movement Provisions': CELS Seminar
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
'The Familiapress Dilemma: The Horizontal Application, Horizontal Direct Effect and Horizontal Enforcement of the Free Movement Provisions': CELS Seminar
Speaker: Professor Barend van Leeuwen, Durham University
Abstract: What do we mean when we talk about the "horizontal direct effect" of the free movement provisions? You would think that, after decades of case law on the free movement provisions, the meaning of this concept should be relatively clear and crystallised. However, there is still a significant amount of disagreement about the very meaning of the concept of "horizontal direct effect". While some EU lawyers speak of horizontal direct effect when the free movement provisions are applied in a dispute between private parties (a procedural approach), other EU lawyers will only refer to horizontal direct effect when the rule or conduct that is being challenged is of a private nature (a substantive approach). This paper will analyse these different interpretations of the concept of horizontal direct effect through the lens of the "Familiapress dilemma". It will be argued that a distinction should be made between horizontal direct effect cases (in which private rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties) and horizontal enforcement cases (in which State rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties). The problem with a procedural approach to horizontal direct effect is that no connection is made between direct effect and the question of who is held responsible (and liable) for breaches of the free movement provisions. This makes it more difficult to provide effective judicial protection to victims of breaches of free movement law, because it is unclear who should ultimately "pay the bill". Against this background, it will be argued that the CJEU should develop more explicit techniques or "formulas" to allocate responsibility in free movement cases. In parallel, the CJEU should improve the effectiveness of the remedies of State liability and private liability for breaches of the free movement provisions.
For more information see:
https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series
View all episodes
By Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge
3.4
55 ratings
Speaker: Professor Barend van Leeuwen, Durham University
Abstract: What do we mean when we talk about the "horizontal direct effect" of the free movement provisions? You would think that, after decades of case law on the free movement provisions, the meaning of this concept should be relatively clear and crystallised. However, there is still a significant amount of disagreement about the very meaning of the concept of "horizontal direct effect". While some EU lawyers speak of horizontal direct effect when the free movement provisions are applied in a dispute between private parties (a procedural approach), other EU lawyers will only refer to horizontal direct effect when the rule or conduct that is being challenged is of a private nature (a substantive approach). This paper will analyse these different interpretations of the concept of horizontal direct effect through the lens of the "Familiapress dilemma". It will be argued that a distinction should be made between horizontal direct effect cases (in which private rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties) and horizontal enforcement cases (in which State rules or actions are challenged in a dispute between private parties). The problem with a procedural approach to horizontal direct effect is that no connection is made between direct effect and the question of who is held responsible (and liable) for breaches of the free movement provisions. This makes it more difficult to provide effective judicial protection to victims of breaches of free movement law, because it is unclear who should ultimately "pay the bill". Against this background, it will be argued that the CJEU should develop more explicit techniques or "formulas" to allocate responsibility in free movement cases. In parallel, the CJEU should improve the effectiveness of the remedies of State liability and private liability for breaches of the free movement provisions.
For more information see:
https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/weekly-seminar-series
More shows like Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge
View all
In Our Time
5,413 Listeners
Economist Podcasts
4,338 Listeners
Business Daily
525 Listeners
Friday Night Comedy from BBC Radio 4
2,099 Listeners
More or Less: Behind the Stats
903 Listeners
LSE: Public lectures and events
275 Listeners
Witness History
949 Listeners
In Our Time: History
1,891 Listeners
In Our Time: Culture
586 Listeners
LCIL International Law Centre Podcast
11 Listeners
Philosophy
17 Listeners
The LRB Podcast
292 Listeners
Social and Developmental Psychology Seminar Series
0 Listeners
Cambridge Judge Business School Discussions on Economics & Policy
2 Listeners
The State of the Universe - Stephen Hawking 70th Birthday Symposium
9 Listeners
Intelligence Squared
786 Listeners
Faculty of Classics
5 Listeners
Medieval History Seminars
14 Listeners
Research Horizons
0 Listeners
Cambridge Ukrainian Studies Podcast
3 Listeners
FT Tech Tonic
89 Listeners
PEDAL Centre
1 Listeners
Inside Briefing with the Institute for Government
20 Listeners
Past Present Future
282 Listeners
The Economics Show
82 Listeners