Van Gend, European Community regulations can and must be tried before national courts and therefore Eastern Interiors can bring action on refusal of license in UK courts. However since the UK Government in Tachographics has left the matter of implementation of EU regulations to individuals without any State intervention, it is not likely to interfere unless Eastern Interiors can demonstrate a discriminatory bias in the decision of the European Commission to refuse its license. The other Company does not have any grounds for appeal, since it does not even have a reply from the Commission. Action can be bought against EU regulations by a Member State by going in appeal to the ECJ, which is the only authority that can possibly over rule the decisions of the Commission. However in this instance, since only two companies are affected by the refusal/denial of license, it is unlikely that any appeal will be entertained by UK Courts. Through the concept of direct effect, member states are bound to apply EU regulations in their entirety, and they cannot be implemented piece meal (See case 128/78 Commission v UK (1979) ECR 419). In the event of non compliance with the EU regulation, the UK may have to change its laws to accommodate EU Law (See the case of C-246/89R Commission v UK (1989). However this case concerns the refusal of licenses, for which restrictions on availability have already been specified, and since the regulation will be implemented in its entirety, the restriction on licenses and the right to refuse or deny a license as laid out in the Regulation, will have primary and predominant effect in the UK and individuals such as Eastern Interiors will have to accept and adhere to the terms of the Regulation. EU regulations are in general very detailed and unless any specific remedies are available to individuals under the terms of the regulation, it is unlikely that eastern Interiors or the other company can successfully seek remedy under EU law.
In the case