direct effect the doctrine in the law of the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES that states that a Community Act has direct effect when those who are subject to COMMUNITY LAW are given a right. It applies to indi- viduals and institutions. Persons who benefit from the right can sue for their protection in their national courts. These rights must be

129

direct evidence

respected regardless of the domestic law, thus this is an inherent part of the notion of the supremacy of European law. The features looked for are that the measure should be clear, concise, uncondi- tional and allow no discretion to the MEMBER STATES or Community institutions. REGULATIONS nearly always have DIRECT EFFECT. A DIREC- TIVE can also have a direct effect, but this is ascertained taking each case on its merits. The COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNI- TIES has held that a directive can have vertical direct effect, which occurs where the measure in question is capable of producing rights between the addressee, which is usually the member state, and a third party: see Nederlandse Ondernemingen v. Inspecteur der Inveroerrechten en Accijnzen [1977] ECR 113. More difficult is horizon- tal direct effect, which is the situation where one third party could utilise the Act to sue another fourth party. The case law is not com- pletely settled on the matter, although on balance it may be against horizontal direct effect: Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority [1986] ECR 723; Beets-Proper v. Van Lanschot Bankiers [1986] ECR 773; and see Colson v. Land Nordrhein- Westfallen [1984] ECR 3415.

• deception
• decision
• declaration against interest
• declarator
• declaratory power
• declinature
• decree
• decree absolute
• decree nisi and absolute
• decree of irritancy
• deduction of tax at source
• deed
• deed of grant
• deed poll
• defamation
• default
• default of pleadings
• defeasance
• defect
• defective equipment
• defence
• deferred sentence
• deferred shares
• de jure
• delay