In the Viamex case and the Portugás case, the Court of Justice has recognized that State authorities can rely on the provisions of EU directives against undertakings before the national court, although the Court had long prohibited the "inverse direct effect", that is, State authorities' relying on the provisions of directives against individuals, including private undertakings. Whereas the Court's explanation on the consistency of two rulings with the case-law is very succinct, did the Court implicitly re-evaluate the theoretical underpinnings of the prohibition of the "inverse direct effect" ? Do those judgments foreshadow the further change in the case-law on the direct effect of directives ? Will the Court recognize the horizontal direct effect between private parties, which it has been consistently rejecting, based on the same reason as those of the "inverse direct effect" ? This contribution compares the past judgments with those judgments and proves that the Court is not likely to bring radical change to its case-law on the direct effect of directives in the foreseeable future, although the Portugás judgment added new development to the case-law.

一橋大学大学院法学研究科

2015-11-10

Japanese(jpn)

departmental bulletin paper

VoR

10.15057/27610

1347-0388

AA1161370X

一橋法学

14

3

237

271

14巻3号(2015.11)

https://hdl.handle.net/10086/27610