Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garantía Salarial

European Law

Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garantia Salarial
Image: ‘Sunny Spain’ by William Merritt Chase

To read about this case in greater depth, and with the benefit of full OSCOLA referencing, simply purchase a copy of ‘The Case Law Compendium: English & European Law’ from leading booksellers around the world.

Where can I buy it?

The book is available now through most Amazon sites thanks to the brilliance of Print on Demand (POD) technology and it is also printed through Ingram Spark (aka Lightning Source), who, through their worldwide  partnership agreements, supply ‘The Case Law Compendium’ to almost 40,000 retailers, libraries, schools and universities while providing worldwide shipping as standard.

America

Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble

Australia & New Zealand

Booktopia

Britain

 Amazon,   BlackwellWaterstones

Canada

AmazonChapters Indigo

France

Amazon

Germany

Amazon

India

Amazon

Italy

Amazon

Japan

Amazon

Latin America

Amazon Brazil

Amazon Mexico

Spain

Amazon

I cannot emphasise enough just how invaluable this book will become to you as your law course progresses, and you’ll be surprised at just how fast you learn the cases and how your confidence grows when discussing their finer points. I am supremely confident that you will also find yourself returning to the book when studying both for insight and refreshment of knowledge, and I quietly hope you will be equally excited whenever you turn to this unprecedented resource.

Please remember that it was you the worldwide readers, that inspired this book, so you owe it to yourselves to buy it (and use the hell out of it) and to tell your peers and friends everywhere, so that they too can work towards becoming an ‘A‘ student in English law.

– Remember that with ‘The Case Law Compendium’ you can do it.

Electronic Signatures Neil

R v HM Treasury ex p British Telecommunications plc

European Law

R v HM Treasury ex parte British Telecommunications
Image: ‘Red Telephone Box’ by Debbie Fisher

Note: To read about this case in greater depth, and with the benefit of full OSCOLA referencing, simply purchase a copy of ‘The Case Law Compendium: English & European Law’ at Amazon, Waterstones or Barnes & Noble (or go here for a full list of international outlets)


The successful transposition of EU Directives requires delicate application when ensuring the overriding objective of the Directive remains intact. On this occasion, the rules of Directive (90/531/EEC) while specific in their construction, caused immediate conflict between the domestic government and a dominant telecommunications provider.

Basing their argument on principles examined in Francovich and others v Italy, British Telecom (or BT as they are commonly known) took issue with Parliament’s decision to edit the transposed Directive in a way that precluded them from perceived equal rights in a highly competitive industry. In fact by all accounts, the telecommunications giant was already bound to cap its tariff rates, provide connection services irrespective of national geography and publish its commercial intentions for all to see. However, when put in its proper context, the domestic market was disparagingly divided in such a way that afforded BT a ninety-percent share, while those new to the field were limited to only a collective three-percent stake.

This extended enormous advantage to the applicants, and yet they still felt that under the prescribed terms of the Directive the EU Commission had intended that any exclusions to the benefit of Community law were decidable between those contracting, and not to the discretion of the Member State. It was understood that in circumstances providing a balanced economic market, the Directive required no degree of intervention as the playing field would, in many events, present itself fairly, yet the UK government, having enjoyed the monopoly of British Telecoms as a state funded enterprise, were only too aware that without marshalling of the transposition, the essence of equality would be lost in translation and the integrity of domestic contract law held to account.

By exercising its discretion, the applicants were (rightly or wrongly) denied access to the terms of the Directive and therefore unable to determine for themselves which services they felt were excludable and why; a process that would have inevitably relied upon the wisdom of the EU Commission to decide, and so was not in any way affected by those preventative measures.

When transposing Directives, it is the duty of Member States to incorporate the relevant terms ‘as far as possible’, whereby on this occasion it was deemed that the steps taken reflected that ethos. This resulted in the Court of Justice reserving the rights of the legislature to act where appropriate, and that despite any sufferance on the part of the applicants, there were no grounds for either ‘direct effect’ damages nor compensatory award for economic loss, as the ends ultimately justified the means.