I realize that lately I have only been posting about boys, my stalker, and Rachna's chicken pox, and that you'd no doubt like to hear something fabulous about England. Unfortunately, though, I have been working my tail off so that I can write bad papers because I don't have enough time or motivation to do a better job. Just so that you can sympathize, which you probably shouldn't because all of you are also working exceptionally hard, I have included my reading list for my tutorial due Friday. I have to get as much read today so that I can write tomorrow. We'll see. All the things with numbers and/or C's in front are cases. No case books here either, so we get to read the unabridged versions.

1. DIRECT EFFECT

Articles 249 and 253-256 EC

P. Craig and G. de Búrca, EU Law, ch. 4
T. Hartley, Foundations of European Community Law, ch. 7
S. Weatherill and P. Beaumont, EU Law, 392-423
S. Weatherill, Law and Integration in the European Union, ch. 4
D. Wyatt and A. Dashwood, European Union Law, ch. 4
B. de Witte, “Direct Effect, Supremacy and the Nature of the Legal Order”, in P. Craig and G. de Búrca (eds.), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, 1999), ch. 5
26/62 Van Gend en Loos above
43/75 Defrenne v. Sabena [1976] ECR 455
41/74 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337
148/78 Ratti [1979] ECR 1629
104/81 Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641
152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723
C-188/89 Foster v. British Gas [1990] ECR I-3313

Rejection of the horizontal direct effect of Directives confirmed, but incidental effect accepted (and lately extended):

C-91/92 Faccini Dori v. Recreb [1994] ECR I-3325 (contrast AG's opinion with that of the Court)
2. INDIRECT EFFECT

80/86 Kolpinghuis [1987] ECR 3969
C-106/89 Marleasing SA v. CIA [1990] ECR I-4135
C-456/98 Centrosteel v. Adipol [2000] ECR I-6007 (contrast para. 17 and the ruling proper)
C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer etc., Judgment of 5 October 2004

3. INCIDENTAL DIRECT EFFECT

C-194/94 CIA Security International SA v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL [1996] ECR I-2201
C-226/97 Criminal proceedings against Johannes Martinus Lemmens [1998] ECR I-3711
C-201/94 R. v. The Medicines Control Agency, ex parte Smith & Nephew Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Primecrown Ltd v. The Medicine Control Agency [1996] ECR I-5819
C- 443/98 Unilever Italia v. Central Food [2000] ECR I-7535 (read also the Advocate General’s opinion – do you prefer the view of the Court or of the Advocate General?)
C-159/2000 Sapod Audic v. Eco-Emballages SA [2002] ECR I-5031
C-201/02 Wells [2004] ECR I -723

4. REMEDIES IN THE NATIONAL COURTS

P. Craig and G. de Búrca, EU Law, ch. 5
S. Weatherill and P. Beaumont, EU Law, 423-432
T. Hartley, Foundations of European Community Law, 220-232
D. Wyatt and A. Dashwood, European Union Law, ch. 5
R. Crawford Smith, “Remedies for Breaches of EU Law in National Courts: Legal Variation and Selection”, in P. Craig and G. de Búrca (eds.), The Evolution of EU Law (Oxford, 1999), 308
33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz [1976] ECR 1989
45/76 Comet [1976] ECR 2043
14/83 Von Colson [1984] ECR 1891
222/86 UNECTEF v. Heylens [1987] ECR 4097
C-213/89 Factortame (No. 1) [1990] ECR 1-2433
C-143/88 and 92/89 Zuckerfabrik Suderdithmarschen [1991] ECR I-415
C-465/93 Atlanta [1995] ECR I-3761
C-66/95 Sutton [1997] ECR I-2163
C-326/96 Levez [1998] ECR I-7835
C-473/2000 Cofidis [2002] ECR I-10875
C-453/99 Courage Ltd. v. Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297
C-255/00 Grundig Italiana [2002] ECR I-8003
5. ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST MEMBER STATES FOR BREACH OF COMMUNITY LAW
6/90 and 9/90 Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357
C-48/93 Factortame (No. 3) [1996] ECR I-1029
C-392/93 R. v. H. M. Treasury ex parte British Telecom [1996] ECR I-1631
C-224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239 (state liability for judicial error)
C. Harlow, “Francovich and the Problem of the Disobedient State”, (1996) 2 ELJ 199

6. FRANCOVICH IN THE NATIONAL COURTS

Factortame [1999] 3 CMLR 597, [1999] 4 All ER 906; [2001] 1 CMLR 47
Brasserie du Pêcheur [1997] 1 CMLR 971

ESSAY QUESTION:

Was Köbler rightly decided?