James E. Hanft


This Comment argues that the Francovich judgment logically proceeds from the Treaty and general principles of Community law. Part I discusses the state of Community law prior to the Francovich decision. Part II examines the factual background of the decision, the judgment of the Court, and the opinion of Advocate General Mischo. Part III argues that the principle of liability in damages for a breach of Community law is a logical extension of the Treaty and the Court of Justice caselaw. This Comment concludes that private law remedies or their equivalent must be made available for breaches of Community law and that any conflicting liability schemes in the Member States must be brought into conformity with the Francovich judgment.