INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES: There are THREE questions on the paper. You must answer all three questions. Question 1 is a seen case study. This will be distributed in advance, and is worth 50% of the marks for the examination. The remaining two questions are both unseen, and are worth 25% of the marks each. Materials Permitted in the Examination:
1. Candidates may bring into the examination a copy of Busby and Smith Core EU Legislation (Palgrave Macmillan). THIS MUST BE UNMARKED, OTHER THAN HIGHLIGHTING OR UNDERLINING. 2. Candidates will be provided with a copy of the seen case in the examination
No other materials are permitted in the examination. Mitigation – Academic regulations 6.84 – 6.96
6.89 Claims for mitigation must be submitted by the student or in exceptional circumstances (e.g. when a student has been hospitalised) by a Director of Studies, Programme Leader or Student Adviser on behalf of the student no later than five working days after the date on which an examination has been sat.
Number of questions set: 3 Number of pages: 4 (including cover) Name of examiner/tutor: Dr Penny English

QUESTION 1. Answer ALL of the following questions based on the case C-194/94 Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl. Briefly set out the facts of the case (5 marks)

The Court refers to Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton and SW Hampshire AHA. Explain the legal issue and ruling in that case (10 marks)

The Advocate General refers to three ways in which the Court of Justice has addressed the fact that directives can only be relied upon against the state (i.e. vertically). What are the three ways? Explain briefly the main elements of each. (15 marks) The Advocate General put forward arguments for the horizontal direct effect of directives. What are these? What was the decision of the Court on this issue?(20 marks)