Pubblico Ministero v Ratti
A directive can be relied on against the state only once the deadline for implementing it has passed, and a Member State cannot rely on its own failure to implement it.
Facts
Mr Ratti ran a business selling solvents and varnishes in Italy. He labelled them in accordance with two EU directives, which Italy had not implemented, but not in accordance with an Italian law, which required different information on the labels. He was prosecuted. The implementation date for one directive had passed, but the date for the other had not.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that Mr Ratti could rely on the directive whose implementation date had passed, but not on the other. A Member State which has not adopted the implementing measures required by the directive in the prescribed periods may not rely, as against individuals, on its own failure to perform the obligations which the directive entails. This is based on a form of estoppel. But before the implementation date, the directive could not have direct effect, because Member States were still free to implement it.
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
- Foster v British Gas plc Case C-188/89, [1990] ECR I-3313
- Fratelli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano Case 103/88, [1989] ECR 1839
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.
