Marshall v S'hampton Health [1986] ECR 723

Facts

• Helen Marshall was employed by the Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority.
• She was dismissed at age 62, while male colleagues were allowed to work until age 65.
• Marshall claimed that her dismissal constituted sex discrimination, allegedly violating Directive 76/207/EEC on equal treatment.
• The legal question centered on whether Ms. Marshall could rely directly on the directive against her public sector employer, the health authority.

Issues

1. Whether Directive 76/207/EEC could be relied upon directly by Ms. Marshall against her public sector employer.
2. Whether EU directives can produce horizontal direct effect, permitting individuals to invoke them against private parties.
3. How EU law distinguishes between vertical and horizontal direct effect of directives.

Decision

• The ECJ held that Ms. Marshall could rely on Directive 76/207/EEC against her employer since the health authority was an "emanation of the state," establishing vertical direct effect.
• The Court determined that directives lack horizontal direct effect and thus may not be invoked against private parties or companies.
• The rationale was that directives impose obligations on member states, not on individuals, absent national implementation.

Legal Principles

• A directive confers vertical direct effect if its relevant provision is clear, precise, and unconditional, allowing invocation by individuals against the state or its emanations.
• Directives do not possess horizontal direct effect and cannot be invoked against private entities.
• Article 288 TFEU differentiates between regulations (binding in entirety and directly applicable) and directives (binding only as to result and requiring implementation).
• The principle of indirect effect requires national courts to interpret their law, as far as possible, in line with EU directives, including in litigation between private parties, as established in Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen.
• The concept of "emanation of the state" for purposes of vertical direct effect was further developed in subsequent case law.

Conclusion

This case established that individuals can invoke provisions of a directive against a state body where they are clear, precise, and unconditional, but not against private parties, underlining the limits of direct effect of directives in EU law and affirming the doctrine of indirect effect to ensure the implementation of EU objectives.