Andrea Francovich & Danila Bonifaci et al. v. Italian Republic

E.C.J. Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, 1991 E.C.R. I-5357 (1991)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Andrea Francovich & Danila Bonifaci et al. v. Italian Republic

European Union Court of Justice
E.C.J. Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, 1991 E.C.R. I-5357 (1991)

Facts

A European Union (EU) directive required member states to ensure that an employee is protected against employer insolvency. The directive provided that measures must be taken to ensure payment of outstanding claims by employees against insolvent employers arising from an employee contract relating to employee payment. The directive gave discretion to member states to set the cutoff date for determining the outstanding claims as the date of the employer’s insolvency, the date of notice of dismissal to the employee, or the date on which the employment contract was terminated due to employer insolvency. Further, member states were required to enact rules for the operation of the institutions that guarantee payment to the employees (guarantee institutions), including that (1) assets of the guarantee institutions were to be independent of the employer’s operating capital, (2) employers were required to contribute to the financing of the guarantee institutions unless the institutions were fully funded by public authorities, and (3) the guarantee institutions would be liable to pay employees even if the obligations to contribute to financing the institutions had not been met. Italy did not implement the directive through domestic legislation in a timely manner. Andrea Francovich (plaintiff) was an employee of a company that had become insolvent. Francovich sued Italy (defendant) in an Italian court, arguing that the directive created an individual right for employee protection against insolvent employers that individuals in EU member states were entitled to rely on in a national court. The Italian court asked the European Union Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 791,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership