The Francovich judgment lays down the principle of the liability of the State with regard to individuals for damages deriving from the failure to transpose a directive. The obligation of the State to make reparation applies regardless of the direct effect of the directive: even if the provisions which confer rights on individuals are not sufficiently precise and unconditional for them to be directly invoked, damage is considered to have been caused to the individual owing to the nonfulfilment of the State.

In its judgment of 5 March 1996, in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, the Court of Justice concludes that, where a breach of Community law by a Member State is attributable to the national legislature acting in a field in which it has a wide discretion to make legislative choices, individuals suffering loss or injury thereby are entitled to reparation where the rule of Community law breached is intended to confer rights upon them, the breach is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between the breach and the damage sustained by the individuals.

In its judgment of 30 September 2003, in Case C-224/01, Köbler, the Court of Justice makes clear that, since, in international law, a State which incurs liability for breach of an international commitment is viewed as a single entity, irrespective of whether the breach which gave rise to the damage is attributable to the legislature, the judiciary or the executive, that principle must apply a fortiori in the Community legal order since all State authorities, including the legislature, are bound, in performing their tasks, to comply with the rules laid down by Community law which directly govern the situation of individuals.

In its judgment of 10 July 1997, in Case C-261/95, Palmisani/INPS, the Court of Justice points out that it is on the basis of the rules of national law on liability that the State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss or damage caused; further, the conditions, in particular time-limits, for reparation of loss or damage laid down by national law must not be less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims (principle of equivalence) and must not be so framed as to make it virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation (principle of effectiveness).