Foster v British Gas plc
A directive can be relied on against a body that provides a public service under the control of the state and has special powers, even if it is not part of the state itself.
Facts
Mrs Foster and other women were employed by the British Gas Corporation, which was then a nationalised industry. They were required to retire at 60, while men retired at 65. They claimed that this breached the Equal Treatment Directive. The question was whether British Gas was an emanation of the state, against which the directive could be enforced.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that a directive can be relied on against a body, whatever its legal form, which has been made responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the state, for providing a public service under the control of the state and has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals. The House of Lords then held that British Gas was such a body. The test was later considered in Farrell v Whitty, which held that the criteria need not all be satisfied together.
Related cases on direct effect of directives
- Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt Case 8/81, [1982] ECR 53
- CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA Case C-194/94, [1996] ECR I-2201
- Dansk Industri (DI), acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen Case C-441/14, EU:C:2016:278
- Egenberger v Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung eV Case C-414/16, EU:C:2018:257
- Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl Case C-91/92, [1994] ECR I-3325
- Farrell v Whitty Case C-413/15, EU:C:2017:745
- Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano Case 103/88, [1989] ECR 1839
- Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Case 222/84, [1986] ECR 1651
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
