Business Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Business Law - Essay Example The principle established in this case is what is sometimes referred to as the ‘Principle of state liability in European Union law.† The European Court in this case held that the Government of Italy had breached its obligations and was therefore liable to pay compensation to workers who had suffered loss as a result of the breach. The court went on further to state that such damages should be made available in matters before various national courts. However, before such remedies could be made available, one had to prove that the directive he is alleging has not been implemented conferred upon him some specific rights that could be identified as well as an existing link between failure to implement it and the loss occasioned. It encompasses the doctrine of indirect effect where national courts are required to ensure enforcement of European Union obligations and ensure that interpretation of domestic law is consistent with the directives of the European Union. It can be sai d to be an additional and corollary of the direct effect doctrine. It is very vital in the enforcement of European Union law and rights that have been breached by private individuals in what is seen as a horizontal effect. Since directives usually have direct effect concerning claims on those directives on private individuals, it is therefore prudent to note that domestic law could be the only one that provides a basis for commencing an action against someone. The national courts are therefore expected to make sure that they interpret domestic law consistently with the directives given by the European Union. However this is only possible where the national law is not entirely inconsistent with the European Union law. The European Community is now entering into many international agreements in its capacity as an independent party. The agreements it enters into qualify to be community law in so far as they are covered by the competence of the community. Before community law can be eff ective, there must be liability on the part of member state. This is what led to the question as to whether a private individual can make a member state liable where they are in breach of an international agreement. It is good to note that the European Community’s relations externally are mainly characterized by existing legal and political conditions, the answer as to whether an individual can sue a member state will be shaped by the jurisprudence of the courts. This therefore depends on the will of the court to give effect to its earlier jurisprudence. This is the jurisprudence by the court that answered the question in the affirmative. However, the principle remains uncertain in majority of the cases. In R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hedley Lomas, [1996] ECR I-2580, para. 104, the court upheld the decision in Francovich that there was need to ensure that community law was effective which could only be achieved through its uniform application. The court held that member liability which was inherent was one of the greatest to secure effectiveness of the community law. The court developed principles through which it could be possible to extend the liability of member states to cover external relations as well. The principle developed by the court was that first it was important to determine whether such international agreements have eventually formed community law worth of according primacy. This concept has been further developed by courts as evidence by the many decisions that have been delivered by the courts. For example the court in the case of Dillenkoffer

Write a memorandum Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Write a memorandum - Essay Example Due to this, the City Council is losing significant revenue collections, crime has gone high, the decline in the waterfront area is more real, and the economy is dwindling. As a result, the council is deciding on how to react on these complaints. In doing this, the Council will use the Measure A, that seeks to revitalize the economy on the waterfront area where the Marina sits. It also relies on the amended Referendum 3 that aims at limiting the government’s eminent domain power by restricting the permissible interpretations of the â€Å"public use† requirement for eminent domain (Dyson 1-2). The council seeks to take over the waterfront area and compensate the owners like Mr. Park. Henceforth, the city plans to transfer the land to public use where it hopes to derive jobs, revenues, and minimize noise on Elm Street. The City also relies on Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 case studies (2005) to succeed in its quest. Mr. Park’s house, marina is on that st reet and the council is bound to make it a stadium. Hence, Mr. Park is seeking legal advice on how to stop the council from taking his waterfront home. In 2000, New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain powers to acquire private property for purposes of selling it for private use with an aim of boosting the city’s economy. In doing this, New London sought to create more than 1000 jobs, revitalize the economy, and increase tax revenues. As such, aggrieved owners took the matter to court arguing that the seized property was not for public use and the Fifth Amendment Takings limits the government from seizing private property for public use without just compensation. The legal question in this question was whether the city’s seizure and selling of the reference property is of â€Å"public use† according to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In a majority ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London qualifying the city’s