Legal Cases of Mr Francovich - Coursework Example

The Child Poverty Action Group filed an application on behalf of Mrs Sutton for getting interested in the awarded benefit. The Secretary of State for Social Security rejected Mrs Sutton’s application based on the argument that no interest could be awarded under the national law on the arrears of ICA (Opinion of Advocate General Léger, 19 September 1996, I-2168).

According to the Advocate General, all the divisions of a state come within the scope of the infringement procedures. These are various tiers that include the executive, legislature and the courts. In a situation when one organ of the state, for instance, the court, is not capable of delivering justice, as vouched in a national set up because it goes against the spirit of Community law, the reason could be any. Either it is not workable because it is not accurate or not enough to fully guarantee the implementation of the Community law. Vertically, it is the responsibility of the executive and legislature also to find a path that ensures that the rights of the people are safeguarded through various measures, one of the others (Opinion of Advocate General Mischo, 1991).

As in a democratic setup, the primary responsibility of providing justice remains with the judiciary, vertically if the judiciary is lacking in providing exact and unconditional justice, it is the responsibility of the legislature to reform the law, which needs to be channelized by the bureaucracy so that all deficiencies are covered to the delivery of final judgement (Opinion of Advocate General Mischo, 1991).

Directives can not be depended upon against the state for such rights of individuals that need to be implemented. The gist of Community law to individuals should be straight and clear for initiating legal action against the Member State for losses incurred. Community law comes in the way of the Member State for the losses occurring before the date of the judgement (Opinion of Advocate General Mischo, 1991).

The horizontal direct effect of directives, according to the Advocate General, does not come on the Member state due to the Community law. Another argument is that although a Member state is responsible for any breach of the law, but it can not be held responsible for the losses incurred to the petitioners before the date of the concurrent judgment. Nevertheless, it should not exclude those who have initiated legal processes before the date of the decision. Also, under the shared provisions of Articles, 3 and 4 of Council Directive 80/987, boundaries have not been stipulated by the State under Article 4. It is obligatory under Article 3 for the State to refund the payments of employees. Further, because a Directive has not been enforced earlier by a national court, and its provisions are not enough and unconditional, therefore, it may be having a responsibility on the private parties, thus creating a horizontal direct effect of directives (Opinion of Advocate General Mischo, 1991).

The Court awarded the decision that concerning the security and rights of the employee of an insolvent company, the related people can not implement their rights by going against the State in the national courts where no enforcement actions have been carried out in the given time (Judgement of the Court, 19 November 1991).