Van Duyn v. Home Office case brief summary

Van Duyn v. Home Office case brief summary
EU Law

FACTS
directive 64/221 – the public policy qualification for free movement of workers must be used only for an individual person (not general) – that person must be a threat to public security.

DISCUSSION

• would be to binding effect of directives to exclude possibility that obligation imposed may be invoked by those concerned
• The useful effect of imposing obligation by directive would be weakened if individuals can’t rely on them
• This case lays down an obligation not subject to an exception or condition and which, by its nature, does not require the intervention of any act on part of either the institutions or of MS
• MS are obliged, in implementing a clause which derogates from one of the fundamental principles in favour of individuals, not to take into account factors extraneuous of personal conduct
• legal certainty for the persons concerned requires that they be able to rely on this obligation even though it has been laid down in a legislative act which has no automatic effect in its entirety
• Becker – wherever provisions of a directive appear to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence of implementing measures within the prescribed period, be relied upon