Van Duyn made it clear that this was also true of Directives. If Directives are binding then it is possible that they will be relied upon in national courts, but clearly each case will turn on its own facts.
Therefore since Z works for a Council this can be construed as an emanation of the State (specifically Case 103/99 Costanzo  ECR 1839) and it is submitted that prima facie he is able to rely on the government’s non implementation directly in a UK court or tribunal provided the Directive is unconditional and sufficiently precise.
However this is not true for D. His employer is a private company and as seen in the following case, the Court of Justice does not allow the direct horizontal enforcement of Directives.
In Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching)  ECR 723  1 CMLR 688 Helen Marshall sought to sue a health authority for retirement age discrimination under the Equal Treatment Directive 1976. Her employer dismissed her at 60 in line with her contract. National law exempted retirement matters from its scope -- it did not impose retirement age at 60 - - only that women became eligible for pension at 60.
The Court of Justice held that there was no ‘horizontal effect’ to a Directive where a government had failed to implement a Directive. Helen Marshall could not sue the Health Authority in these circumstances.
If the employer is not the State or an emanation of the State then the Court of Justice allows the national court to look at indirect effect.