一、极简欧盟形成与变迁：
①1957年3月25日，比利时、德国、法国、意大利、卢森堡和荷兰六国在罗马签署了《罗马条约》（正式名称为《欧洲共同体条约》（Treaty Establishing the European Community）），这标志着欧洲经济共同体的正式成立 。《罗马条约》有两个部分，分别建立了欧洲经济共同体（European Economic Community，EEC）和欧洲原子能共同体（Euratom）。欧洲经济共同体旨在通过贸易促进成员国之间的经济一体化和增长，它的主要目标是建立一个共同市场，实现商品、人员、服务和资本的自由流动。
②1993年《马斯特里赫特条约》（Maastricht Treaty）签署后，欧洲经济共同体（EEC）被重新命名为欧洲共同体（European Community，EC），并且成为了新成立的欧洲联盟（European Union，EU）的一部分。
③2009年，《里斯本条约》（Lisbon Treaty）生效后，欧洲共同体（EC）被正式废除，其职能和政策被整合进《欧洲联盟运作条约》（Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union，TFEU）。
二、范根·恩洛斯诉荷兰税务总局案
NV Algemene Transport-Expedite Onderneming Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) Case 26/62
Facts
The claimants, van Gend en Loos, imported chemicals from Western Germany to the Netherlands where they were asked to pay import taxes at Dutch customs, the defendants, which they objected to on the grounds it ran contrary to the European Economic Community’s prohibition on inter-State import duties, as per Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome. The defendants contended that as the claimants were not a natural person but a legal person, they could not claim such rights.
Issues
Whether the European Community treaty gave rise to actionable rights and whether legal persons could rely upon such rights in the same manner as natural persons.
Decision / Outcome
The European Court of Justice found for the claimants, viewing that the European treaties gave rise to rights for legal and natural persons alike. Further, the Court viewed that European Community law ‘not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights’.
Significantly, this case indicates that European treaty law has direct effect against Member States and that they are directly bound by its provisions. Subsequently, European law could be enforced by individuals through the national courts system of a Member State, rather than necessitating that the European Commission bring a legal action against the State in question for failure to comply with its international obligations.
三、欧盟法关键原则
欧盟法律的至上性（Primacy）：至上性原则指的是在欧盟法律与成员国法律发生冲突时，欧盟法律优先适用。这一原则确保了欧盟法律在整个欧盟区域内的统一性和有效性。至上性原则并非在欧盟条约中明确规定，但通过欧洲法院的判例法逐渐发展而成。在“Costa v ENEL”（Case 6/64）案中，法院进一步确认了欧盟法律的至上性，指出成员国通过加入欧盟，已经将某些权力转移给欧盟，因此欧盟规范必须优先于任何国家法律，包括宪法。
直接效力（Direct Effect）：直接效力原则意味着欧盟法律的某些规定可以在成员国法院中被个人直接引用和执行。这一原则使得个人可以依靠欧盟法律来保护自己的权利，即使这些权利不是由国家法律明确赋予的。在“Van Gend en Loos”案中，法院确认了欧盟条约条款具有直接效力。
间接效力（Indirect Effect）：间接效力原则，也称为一致性解释原则，要求国家法院在解释国家法律时，应考虑到欧盟法律，尤其是指令，以实现欧盟法律的间接效力。这一原则通过司法解释国家法律来间接实现指令的效力，当直接效力原则不能适用时。
国家责任（State Liability）：国家责任原则是指成员国因违反欧盟法律而对个人造成的损害承担责任。这一原则由“Andrea Francovich and Others v. Italian Republic”（Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90）案中发展而来，被称为Francovich原则。如果成员国的行为违反了欧盟法律，并且这种违反行为对个人造成了损害，那么个人可以在国家法院提起诉讼要求赔偿。
案例拓展阅读：
Flaminio Costa v ENEL (1964) Case 6/64
Facts
The claimant, Costa, was an Italian citizen with shares in the Italian electricity supply company Edisonvolta, and he sought to oppose moves by the State to nationalise the electric industry. Thus, he attempted to assert that the creditor for his electric bill remained Edisonvolta rather than the new national company, ENEL. Costa subsequently submitted that nationalisation was in violation of the Treaty of Rome. The Italian Constitutional Court viewed that the traditional rules of statutory interpretation, lex posterior derogat legi anteriori/ priori ought apply, whereby in the event of statutory incompatibilities, the newer law prevails, meaning the more recent Italian nationalisation statute would prevail over the earlier Treaty of Rome.
Issues
Should EC law, specifically the Treaty of Rome, be considered dominant over national statutes?
Decision/Outcome
The European Court of Justice overturned the verdict of the Italian Constitutional Court, finding that the Treaty of Rome’s provision regarding the single market did not have direct effect and subsequently was one that only the EC could bring a charge against a Member State for violating. However, the claimant was entitled to avail himself of the national Courts system in Italy, and attempt to contend that a national statute was not compatible with EC law, which the national Courts were thus entitled to decide. It can subsequently be found that Courts are obligated to hear and refer cases until they reach the furthest domestic appeal level where such cases concern EU law.
Case C-6&9/90 Francovich v. Italy [1991] ECR I-5357
Introduction
One of the defining and controversial characteristics of the European Union has been the supranational nature of its institutions and laws. European laws can take the form of primary laws, which consists of the intergovernmental treaties, and secondary laws in the form of regulations, directives and decisions which are passed by the Commission.[1] While regulations are directly applicable, directives once passed have to be implemented by Member State governments by a stated date. Directives often confer rights against the state that can be enforced in the local courts of Member States. This has been termed vertical direct effect. However directives generally do not confer horizontal direct effect in that they do not grant rights that can be enforced horizontally against private or non-state organizations. The European Court of Justice has however been keen to extend the rights that are available to EU citizens, and have made a number of key rulings that have extended the applicability and accessibility of directives. One such case was the Court’s ruling in Francovich and Bonifaci v Republic of Italy[2] which advanced the concept of state liability as well as the development of incidental horizontal effect.
Case Outline
The facts of the case are that Mr Francovich, along with other employees, was left with unpaid salaries when his company went into liquidation. He applied for compensation under the provisions of Directive 80/987 which required Member States to institute compensation measures for such instances.[3] In the absence of the Italian government instituting such measures, the case was referred to the Court for a ruling. The Court found that the wording of the directive was sufficiently vague as to not invoke the principle of direct effect. However to deny the claimants justice because of this deficiency would be to impinge on the effet utile or utility of EU law that was intended to provide adequate compensation.[4] Even in the absence of sufficiently applicable directives, there was an obligation under the provisions of Article 5 EC Treaty (now Article 10), to compensate individuals for any loss suffered due to the failure of a Member State to implement Community law.[5] Consequently the Court ruled that individuals had a right to compensation where there was a violation of a Member States’ duty to implement Community law, provided that three conditions were met. These were as follows:
“The directive must confer rights on individuals
The contents of those rights must be identifiable in the wording of the measure
There must be a causal link between the damage suffered and the failure to implement the Directive”[6]
Issues Raised by this Case
Steiner et al outline the significance of the Court’s ruling in this case by stating; “Francovich introduced the notion of state liability, and created substantive rights for individuals in certain circumstances.”[7] One of the main issues addressed in this ruling is the propensity for Member States to not comply with directives. A government may opt for non-compliance in the knowledge that the costs of compliance outweigh any potential sanction imposed by the Court. However non-compliance affects the uniform accessibility of rights across the Union and can cause discrimination between citizens in complying as opposed to non-complying states. Prior to this case the Court’s rulings were based on guaranteeing that directives had direct effect. This had originally been established in the case of Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen Case 26/62.[8] However the significance of this case is that, in holding national governments accountable, they were also now liable to paying compensation for their failure to transpose a directive into national law within the stated time limit.
ECB Ruling/Outcome
The relevance of this ruling can be found in the fact that Member States are liable in instances where they have failed to implement a directive which did not have direct effect because of the imprecise nature of the directive’s wording. Of particular importance is the fact that the ruling also allows for “national private law remedies or their equivalent to be made available for breaches of Community law.”[9] By this ruling the Court effectively tied the principle of a Member States liability to EC Law as contained in the treaties, while laying down uniform criteria governing such liability. This ruling was suitably modified in a later ruling in the case of Brasserie du Pêcheur,[10] in which the Court extended the scope of liability to include any breach of EC law irrespective of which organ of the state was responsible for the breach.[11] The Court also went further however in modifying the second criteria in the Francovich ruling to state that the breach must be sufficiently serious, with this being determined by testing whether the state deliberately disregarded it responsibilities.[12]
Ultimately the relevance of the development of the principle of state liability in the Francovich ruling can be found in the proactive approach that the Court has adopted in its interpretation of EU law. It can be argued that its foremost concern has been extending the applicability of EU law to European citizens. This was evident from its early proactive rulings which established the supremacy of EU law, despite such a doctrine not being contained within the treaties at the time. Francovich is therefore one important ruling in an evolutionary continuum of rulings that have extended access to rights by Europe’s citizens from the direct effectiveness of directives to state liability, and the eventual establishment of incidental horizontal effect.[13] This latter principle has been developed in case law to allow EU citizens to enforce rights horizontally against private individuals and organizations, and not just vertically against the state or its emanations (as per Marshall v Southampton Area Health Authority).[14] In this the Court has had to tread a delicate line between extending these rights and protecting the sovereignty of national governments and courts, especially within the context of the subsidiarity principle which mandates (under the provisions of Article 5(3) TEU) that areas which do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Union should be devolve to the lowest level of competence in the Member States.[15] In this sense it has been cogently and controversially argued that rulings such as Francovich have been more important to the integration process in Europe than the constitutional and political decision makings of democratically elected governments.
