Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl Case C-91/92 [1994] ECR I-3325
Facts
Paola Faccini Dori agreed to buy an English-language correspondence course from Interdiffusion away from its business premises. She subsequently sought to cancel. The trader assigned its claim for payment to Recreb, which pursued her for the price. She relied on the cancellation protection in Directive 85/577/EEC concerning contracts negotiated away from business premises. Italy had failed to implement the directive within the prescribed time. The Italian court therefore asked whether the relevant provisions were sufficiently precise and unconditional, and whether a consumer could enforce them directly against a private trader.
Legal Issue
Could the consumer use an unimplemented directive itself to enforce a cancellation right against a private company, and what alternative protection did EU law require?
Held
The Court held that the relevant provisions were sufficiently precise and unconditional as to the protected persons and minimum cancellation period. Nevertheless, a directive could not of itself impose an obligation on a private party. Faccini Dori therefore could not derive an enforceable cancellation right against the trader from the directive alone. National courts had to interpret domestic law, so far as possible, in light of the directive's wording and purpose, whether that law predated or followed it. Where interpretation could not achieve the required result, the Court identified potential State liability for loss caused by failure to transpose. It did not order the private trader to pay compensation for Italy's default.
⭐ Legal Principle
A directive does not of itself impose obligations on a private party in a horizontal dispute, even where its terms are sufficiently precise and unconditional. Consistent interpretation and, where its conditions are met, State liability provide distinct routes for protecting individuals affected by non-transposition.
Significance
Faccini Dori is a leading authority for distinguishing direct effect, consistent interpretation and State liability. Those mechanisms should be analysed separately rather than treating the failure of one as the end of the claim. Later decisions such as Max-Planck recognise enforceable rights arising from particular Charter provisions; that does not convert directives generally into horizontally effective measures. The case's original consumer-cancellation regime is historical and should not be substituted for present consumer legislation.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was precision insufficient for horizontal direct effect?
Precision and unconditionality concern whether a legal provision is suitable for direct enforcement, but they do not change a directive's addressees. The Court held that a directive cannot itself impose an obligation on another private party. The identity of the defendant and the nature of the EU instrument therefore remain separate requirements.
Could the national court still interpret domestic law to assist the consumer?
Yes. The court had to interpret national law, as far as possible, in light of the directive's wording and purpose. That is consistent interpretation, not direct enforcement of the directive against the trader. The judgment expressly applied the interpretative obligation to national provisions adopted before or after the directive.
Who might be liable if interpretation could not secure the directive's result?
The State could be liable for harm caused by its failure to transpose, subject to the applicable State-liability conditions. The judgment referred to identifiable individual rights and a causal connection between the breach and loss. It did not transfer the State's liability to the trader simply because the trader sought contractual payment.