28 October 2011 / Trevor Tayleur

Issue: 7487 / Categories: Features , EU , Commercial

printer

mail-detail

Through the back door?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Trevor Tayleur analyses confusing case law surrounding the direct effect of EU Directives

It is a basic tenet of EU law that Directives are not capable of horizontal direct effect. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decisively rejected extending horizontal direct effect to Directives (Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl: C-91/92 [1995] All ER (EC) 1). However, subsequent judgments of the court have clouded the issue (Mangold v Helm: C-144/04 [2006] All ER (EC) 383, and Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG: C-555/07 [2010] All ER (EC) 867).

Mangold

Mangold, aged 56, was employed on a fixed-term employment contract. He subsequently brought proceedings in the German courts against his private sector employer, challenging the fixed-term nature of his contract. He argued that the contract breached Directive 2000/78 (the Directive), which prohibits various types of discrimination, including age. The discrimination occurred because a German law introduced in 2002 only permitted fixed term contracts for employees younger than 52 in exceptional circumstances; this restriction did not apply to employees

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Through the back door?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Trevor Tayleur analyses confusing case law surrounding the direct effect of EU Directives

It is a basic tenet of EU law that Directives are not capable of horizontal direct effect. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decisively rejected extending horizontal direct effect to Directives (Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl: C-91/92 [1995] All ER (EC) 1). However, subsequent judgments of the court have clouded the issue (Mangold v Helm: C-144/04 [2006] All ER (EC) 383, and Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG: C-555/07 [2010] All ER (EC) 867).

Mangold

Mangold, aged 56, was employed on a fixed-term employment contract. He subsequently brought proceedings in the German courts against his private sector employer, challenging the fixed-term nature of his contract. He argued that the contract breached Directive 2000/78 (the Directive), which prohibits various types of discrimination, including age. The discrimination occurred because a German law introduced in 2002 only permitted fixed term contracts for employees younger than 52 in exceptional circumstances; this restriction did not apply to employees

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation

NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’

Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies

NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins

Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid

NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements

The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation

back-to-top-scroll