Any conflicting national law must be set aside, whether prior or subsequent to the EU rule.

Damages claim: other kinds of breach of [EU] law by Member States.

Right to damages, provided the conditions are satisfied.

Challenge to Italian legislation.

EU law takes precedence over post-dated national legislation that conflicts with it.

Defrenne sought to invoke a Treaty article (now Article 157 TFEU) in an equal pay claim.

Treaty articles are also capable of horizontal direct effect. Conditions for direct effect loosened: a Treaty article must be sufficiently clear, precise, and unconditional.

Case concerning with liability under a motor insurance directive and the potential for it to have direct effect.

Clarified definition of ‘public body’/‘emanation of state’, Foster test was not intended to provide cumulative conditions nor be exhaustive

Foster sought to rely on Directive 76/207 in a sex discrimination claim.

‘Public body’ includes a body made responsible by the state for providing a public service, under state control, and with special powers for that purpose, beyond those normally applicable between individuals.

Damages claim against Italy: non-implementation of a directive.

Right to damages, provided the conditions are satisfied.

[EU] levies claimed to be contrary to the German constitution.

EU law takes precedence over all national law, including national constitutional law.

Damages claim: national court’s interpretation of [EU] law.

An erroneous interpretation of EU law by a court of last instance can give rise to state liability.

Horizontal claim concerning the Company Law Directive 68/151.

If no direct effect: national courts must, as far as possible, interpret national law, whether adopted before or after a directive, in the light of the wording and purpose of the directive.

Marshall sought to rely on Directive 76/207 in a sex discrimination claim.

Directives can only be invoked vertically, against the state or a public body.

Claim concerning two directives relating to product labelling.

A directive cannot be directly effective until its implementation deadline has passed (unless the Member State has already attempted to implement the directive)

Claim relating to reliance on a directive which had been incorrectly implemented into national law

National courts have a strong duty to attempt to apply indirect effect and adopt an interpretation of national law which is compatible with EU law.

The UK had implemented a directive incorrectly.

State liability can arise in respect of incorrect implementation of a directive.

Refusal of licences for export of live animals to Spain.

State liability can arise in respect of administrative acts.

Application for an interim injunction.

The effectiveness of EU law would be impaired if a national rule could prevent the grant of interim relief in relation to EU law rights. The rule must be set aside.

Van Duyn challenged the UK’s decision to refuse her entry, seeking to rely on Directive 64/221.

Directives are capable of direct effect. Van Gend conditions applied: the provision must be clear, precise, and unconditional.

Challenge to an increased customs duty as a breach of an EC Treaty provision concerning the free movement of goods (now Article 30 TFEU).

Principle of direct effect established. A Treaty article is directly effective if clear, precise, and unconditional and its implementation requires no legislative intervention by Member States. Treaty articles are capable of vertical direct effect.

(See above)

‘The Community constitutes a new legal order in international law, for whose benefits the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields.’

Von Colson sought to rely on Article 6 of Directive 76/207.

The provision was not sufficiently clear and precise to have direct effect. The German court must interpret the relevant national provision in line with Article 6. Principle of indirect effect created.