Marshall v Southampton Health Authority
| Marshall v Southampton and SW Hampshire AHA | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | European Court of Justice |
| Citation(s) | (1986) Case 152/84, [1986] ECR 723 |
| Keywords | |
| Direct effect | |
Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (1986) Case 152/84 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.
Contents
Facts
Helen Marshall claimed that her dismissal on grounds of being old violated the Equal Treatment Directive 1976. She was an employee of an Area Health Authority, a body established by the UK government under the National Health Service Act 1977, as amended by the Health Services Act 1980. She was dismissed after 14 years as she had passed the age of 60. The AHA’s policy was to make women compulsorily retire at 60, but men not till 65.
The English Court of Appeal found that the Area Health Authority an ‘emanation of the State’, and made a reference to the European Court of Justice.
Judgment
Advocate General Opinion
Advocate General Slynn argued the ‘State’ should be construed broadly, to cover all organs. He said ‘horizontal effect’ of directives would ‘totally blur the distinction between directives and regulations’ in the Treaty.
Court of Justice
The ECJ, in a full court of 13 judges, held there was no horizontal direct effect. It does not matter what capacity a state is acting. Thus it fell to enquire whether the NHS was entitled to be considered as an ‘individual’ or was the state, and that was a matter for the national court.
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
48. ... according to article 189 of the EEC Treaty the binding nature of a directive, which constitutes the basis for the possibility of relying on the directive before a national court, exists only in relation to 'each member state to which it is addressed'. It follows that a directive may not of itself impose obligations on an individual and that a provision of a directive may not be relied on as such against such a person. 49. ... In either case it is necessary to prevent the State from taking advantage of its own failure to comply with Union law.
