Sample Solution

As Sandra is an EU citizen and due to her rights mentioned above, she is able to enforce her EU rights and use horizontal direct effect. This means she is able to take action against the ENF on the grounds that she is being discriminated against based on her nationality as the rules for disqualification for changing teams mid season are only applicable to international players. Acts that receive disqualification for only international players is unlawful and Article 18 TFEU states that “any discrimination on the grounds of nationality is prohibited.” Article 45 TFEU subsection 2 regards the “abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States” in regards to employment. The case of Dona v Mantero the Court of Justice held that sporting bodies that are not emanations of the state are liable to uphold the rights set out in Article 45 TFEU as long as they undertake economic activities. This is directly applicable to Sandra’s situation which she can use against the ENF. The articles are part of the Treaty provision which is a legally binding source and the case of Defrenne v Sabena establishes that all treaties can be horizontally directly effective. Direct effect “enables individuals to immediately invoke a European provision before a national or European court.” It was established in the case of Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen and is a fundamental principle of European law. It ensures that the Union and Member States are held accountable for failures to fully implement and apply EU law and the Court of Justice developed direct effect as one of the principles which enable citizens to enforce their rights within the national courts. In Sandras situation, horizontal direct effect is the most appropriate remedy as it is between individuals and private parties, who in this case are the ENF. She should argue for breach of Article 45 of the Treaty Provision and is likely to either receive compensation from the ENF or best case, she will be able to play the rest of the EML games of the season. The result depends on whether the national courts decide that the ruling is discriminatory against international players and that London, as a Member State has failed to apply EU law properly.

Charlotte is a Swedish national, making her an EU citizen under Article 20 TFEU . Under Article 21 EU citizens have the right to move and reside freely in another Member State. She has been playing for Tooting for the past 4 years and receives £1,500 per match played. Article 2 (1) of the Directive 2004/38 defines what and EU citizen is as well case law, specifically the Lawrie-Blum v Baden-Württemberg case. She is providing a service through playing netball and has a contract and also receives a monetary reward for each match played. Ultimately, she has the same rights as Sandra. Her worker status means she is