CASE Van Duyn
Vertical direct effect of secondary law
* Case 41/74 Van Duyn
The Court gives vertical direct effect to directives in this case. How does it justify this legally in the face of the language of Article 288 TFEU (Article 189 EEC Treaty at the time of the judgment)?
Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office
Case 41/74
Court of Justice
Summary of the facts and procedure
The Church of Scientology is a body established in the United States of America, which functioned in the United Kingdom through a college at East Grinstead, Sussex. The British Government regarded the activities of the Church of Scientology as contrary to public policy, and on July 25, 1968, the Minister of Health announced that the Government was taking certain steps to curb (frenar) its growth. One of those steps taken was: refusal to issue work permits and employment vouchers to foreign nationals for work at Scientology establishments. However, no legal restrictions were placed upon the practice of Scientology in the United Kingdom nor upon British nationals wishing to become members of or take employment with the Church of Scientology.
Miss van Duyn, a Dutch national, was offered employment as a secretary with the Church of Scientology at its college at East Grinstead. With the intention of taking up that offer she arrived at Gatwick Airport on May 9, 1973, but was refused leave to enter the United Kingdom. Relying on the Community rules on freedom of movement of workers and especially on Article 48 of the EEC Treaty, Regulation 1612/68 and Article 3 of Directive 64/221, Miss van Duyn claimed that the refusal of leave to enter was unlawful and seeks a declaration from the High Court that she was entitled to stay in the United Kingdom for the purpose of employment and to be given leave to enter the United Kingdom.]
Submissions of the Parties
II -- Written observations submitted to the Court
On the Second Question
Miss van Duyn submits that Article 3 of Directive 64/221 is directly applicable. She
* Case 41/74 Van Duyn
The Court gives vertical direct effect to directives in this case. How does it justify this legally in the face of the language of Article 288 TFEU (Article 189 EEC Treaty at the time of the judgment)?
Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office
Case 41/74
Court of Justice
Summary of the facts and procedure
The Church of Scientology is a body established in the United States of America, which functioned in the United Kingdom through a college at East Grinstead, Sussex. The British Government regarded the activities of the Church of Scientology as contrary to public policy, and on July 25, 1968, the Minister of Health announced that the Government was taking certain steps to curb (frenar) its growth. One of those steps taken was: refusal to issue work permits and employment vouchers to foreign nationals for work at Scientology establishments. However, no legal restrictions were placed upon the practice of Scientology in the United Kingdom nor upon British nationals wishing to become members of or take employment with the Church of Scientology.
Miss van Duyn, a Dutch national, was offered employment as a secretary with the Church of Scientology at its college at East Grinstead. With the intention of taking up that offer she arrived at Gatwick Airport on May 9, 1973, but was refused leave to enter the United Kingdom. Relying on the Community rules on freedom of movement of workers and especially on Article 48 of the EEC Treaty, Regulation 1612/68 and Article 3 of Directive 64/221, Miss van Duyn claimed that the refusal of leave to enter was unlawful and seeks a declaration from the High Court that she was entitled to stay in the United Kingdom for the purpose of employment and to be given leave to enter the United Kingdom.]
Submissions of the Parties
II -- Written observations submitted to the Court
On the Second Question
Miss van Duyn submits that Article 3 of Directive 64/221 is directly applicable. She