Short answer
An EU rule can be relied on directly only if the particular provision, read in its legal context, supplies a sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional rule for a national court to apply. The answer is not determined by calling the text “EU law”. It depends on the type and wording of the measure, whether further legislative choices are required, the date, and who the defendant is.
Treaty provisions may have direct effect and some can operate between private parties. Regulations are directly applicable, but a court must still decide what the particular provision creates. A sufficiently precise and unconditional directive can generally be invoked after the implementation deadline against a Member State or an attributable public body, but cannot of itself impose an obligation on a private defendant. Charter rights apply to Member States only within EU law's scope; some operate in private disputes, while others need legislative expression.
The defendant's identity is decisive: a claim that works against a public authority may fail against a private company.
Direct effect is tested provision by provision
The Court of Justice established the basic idea in Van Gend en Loos, Case 26/62: EU law can create rights that national courts must protect. The provision at issue contained a clear and unconditional prohibition and did not depend on a further national measure.
Article 12 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community produces direct effects and creates individual rights which national courts must protect. —
The judgment does not make every Treaty sentence directly effective. Conditions, exceptions or a need for institutional discretion may prevent direct reliance.
It is also necessary to distinguish vertical reliance—against a Member State or attributable body—from horizontal reliance between private parties. Its consequences differ by instrument.
Treaty provisions may operate against public or private defendants
A Treaty rule is not automatically confined to claims against the State. Its wording, purpose and place in the Treaty determine whether it governs private conduct.
In Defrenne v Sabena, Case 43/75, the Court held that the then Treaty principle of equal pay could be applied to directly identifiable discrimination in employment, whether the employer was public or private. A national court could determine unequal pay for equal work without waiting for further legislative criteria. That is an example of horizontal direct effect, not a general rule that every Treaty obligation binds private parties.
The practical questions are:
- Does the Treaty provision state a legal rule rather than a programme for later action?
- Is the obligation sufficiently precise and unconditional on the facts?
- Do its purpose and wording extend to private actors within its material and territorial scope?
Regulations are directly applicable, but the provision still matters
Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) draws an express distinction between regulations and directives:
A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. —
“Directly applicable” means that a regulation becomes part of the applicable legal order without national transposition. It does not mean that every sentence automatically gives every litigant a claim against every other person.
Muñoz and Superior Fruiticola, Case C-253/00, illustrates the second step. Specific regulatory quality standards had to be enforceable by one trader against a competitor because the regulations' scheme required full effectiveness. The provision and remedy must be examined together.
Directives generally work vertically, not horizontally
Directives bind Member States as to the result to be achieved. Where the implementation period has expired and a Member State has failed to transpose a sufficiently precise and unconditional provision correctly, an individual may generally rely on that provision against the State. A State cannot benefit from its own failure to implement EU law.
The position changes with a private defendant. In Marshall, Case 152/84, the Court stated the limit:
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 upon as such against such a person. —
The defendant in Marshall was a public health authority, so the equality provision could be invoked against it. Classifying a public company, regulator, municipality or contractor may require closer analysis; its name is not conclusive.
Where the defendant is genuinely private, the court must not convert the directive into a private obligation. It should consider whether domestic law can be interpreted consistently with it, without forcing an interpretation contrary to national law. If faulty implementation caused loss, State liability may offer compensation.
The Grand Chamber reaffirmed that boundary in Thelen Technopark, Case C-261/20. Even a clear, precise and unconditional directive provision does not require a national court to disapply conflicting national law in a private-party dispute if doing so would impose an additional obligation on an individual. The principle of primacy does not change the legal effects that Article 288 TFEU assigns to directives.
Charter rights require two separate checks
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does not apply to every dispute heard by a court in a Member State. Under Article 51, it binds Member States when they are implementing EU law and does not extend EU competences. The Court's case law treats fundamental rights as applicable in situations governed by EU law. A purely domestic dispute outside that field does not become an EU case merely because a party cites the Charter.
Within EU law, the court must ask whether the Charter provision states a self-sufficient right or a principle needing legislation.
The contrast between two Grand Chamber judgments is instructive. In Egenberger, Case C-414/16, German legislation implemented the Employment Equality Directive. The Court held that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief in Article 21(1), together with effective judicial protection under Article 47, could be relied on in a dispute between private parties:
That prohibition, which is laid down in Article 21(1) of the Charter, is sufficient in itself to confer on individuals a right which they may rely on as such in disputes between them in a field covered by EU law. —
The national court had to secure Articles 21 and 47 and, if necessary, disapply contrary national law. Competing fundamental rights could still require proportionality.
By contrast, Association de médiation sociale, Case C-176/12, concerned workers' information and consultation under Article 27 of the Charter. Its wording refers to guarantees “in the cases and under the conditions provided for” by EU and national law. The Court concluded that Article 27 needed more specific expression and could not itself disapply national legislation in a private dispute.
Accordingly, Article 27 of the Charter cannot, as such, be invoked in a dispute, such as that in the main proceedings, in order to conclude that the national provision which is not in conformity with Directive 2002/14 should not be applied. —
The two judgments show why “the Charter has horizontal effect” is too broad. EU law must govern the field, and the specific provision must supply the right claimed.
A practical decision framework
Before relying directly on an EU provision, identify:
- The exact text and version. Is it a Treaty article, regulation, directive, Charter provision, or national implementing rule? What applied on the material date?
- The legal quality of the rule. Is it sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional, or does it depend on further choices?
- The defendant. Is the claim against a Member State, an attributable public body, or a genuinely private person?
- The directive deadline. Has the implementation period expired, and was the provision transposed correctly?
- The EU-law connection. If the Charter is invoked, is the situation actually governed by EU law?
- The nature of the Charter provision. Does it confer a self-sufficient right, or require legislative implementation?
- The remedy. Does EU law require disapplication or another remedy, or must the claim proceed through consistent interpretation or State liability?
A measure may be binding without supplying the horizontal claim pleaded, and an alternative may remain where direct reliance fails.
Conclusion
Direct reliance turns on the exact provision, instrument, defendant and material date. Treaty provisions and regulations may operate in private disputes; directives cannot by themselves impose private duties. Charter rights require both an EU-law situation and a sufficiently complete right.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.