The adoption of EU Directives is a prerequisite for all Member States, and so an when ignorance of the duty to transpose those obligations into the fabric of national and Community law remained unaddressed, the perfect vehicle emerged with which to underline it.
The importance of employee rights is one frequently contested in all forms of commerce; and so, when Italy failed to adopt Directive 80/987/EEC, it was the joint action of a group of factory workers that directed the European Community’s attention towards the heart of industry and the anger of those being abused within the market system.
After serving as a loyal employee for an electronics firm, the claimant found himself redundant through the process of liquidation; and yet, left unpaid for work undertaken and uncompensated for his loss of earnings; and so, in a conjoined hearing, Danila Bonifaci and thirty-three other employees (case C-9/90) sought recompense within the same matter.
In the first instance, the Pretore di Vicenza and Pretore di Bassano del Grappa both sought a preliminary hearing under article 177 EC; while the first approach taken by the European Court of Justice was to determine if the respondent’s failure to adjust their domestic laws in line with Directive 80/987/EEC had rendered itself liable to individual enforcement of accountability for payment of lost earnings, or whether the pecuniary losses sustained by the claimants were sufficient enough to award damages based upon state avoidance.
Through an examination of the qualifying criteria for ‘direct effect’ claims, the Court established that this particular case satisfied those terms; and yet, noted how the respondent’s non-adoption had failed to fulfil a key element of the Directive requiring proper identification of the companies subscribed to those duties, which left the Commission unable to determine who the two employers were, and how they would be obliged to provide payment or legally defer the onus to the Italian government.
However, the Court also noted how in Simmenthal SpA v Italian Minister of Finance they had held that:
“[D]irectly applicable Community provisions must, notwithstanding any internal rule or practice whatsoever of the Member States, have full, complete and uniform effect in their legal systems in order to protect subjective legal rights created in favour of individuals…”
Which showed that the inability to reflect EU laws will be used as an example when serving the interests of the Community; hence, the Court unanimously held that all Member State national courts were held to a duty to redress the inequity of failed transposition and that full state funded compensation was now due, while reminding the parties that:
“[W]herever the provisions of Directive appear, as far as their subject matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed period, be relied upon as against any national provision which is incompatible with the Directive or in so far as the provisions define rights which individuals are able to assert against the State.”