Farrell v Whitty and Others [2017]

Summary

Ruling concerning the criteria for determining what was an 'emanation of the State' for the purposes of establishing the bodies against which an individual may bring a claim based on rights under an EU directive which had not been transposed correctly into national law.

The ECJ was requested by an Irish court to provide a preliminary ruling concerning the criteria for determining what was an 'emanation of the State' for the purposes of establishing the bodies against which an individual may bring a claim based on rights under an EU directive which had not been transposed correctly into national law.

Ever since the Court developed the doctrine of the direct effect of directives and rendered it applicable to 'vertical' disputes between the individual and the State, but declined to extend that doctrine 'horizontally' to cover disputes between private parties, it has been essential to know what are the boundaries of 'the State' for the purposes of applying the doctrine of vertical direct effect. This issue arose in a case before the referring court which involved the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland (the body in Ireland with exclusive responsibility for compensating applicants injured in road traffic collisions where the responsible driver was uninsured or could not be identified).

Was that body an 'emanation of the State' within the meaning of the test laid down in Foster and Others? If so, was it that body, rather than the State parties to the main proceedings (namely, the Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General), that will…