From Francovich to Köbler and beyond : The evolution of a State liability regime for the EC

The aim of this paper is to present the evolution of the Francovich doctrine within the European legal order. The first part deals with the gradual development of the ECJ's case law on State liability in damages for breach of EC law. Starting from the seminal Francovich and Brasserie du Pêcheur, the clarification of the criteria set by the Court is attempted with reference to subsequent case law, whereas issues concerning the extent and form of the compensation owned are also mentioned. The second part concerns one of the more recent developments in the field, namely State liability for breaches of Community law attributed to national judiciary. The Court's ruling in Köbler is examined in connection with two other recent judgments, namely Commission v. Italy of 2003 and Kühne & Heitz, as an attempt of the ECJ to reframe its relationships with national supreme courts and appropriate for itself the position of the Supreme Court in the European legal order. The implications on State liability claims by the ruling in Commission v. France of 1997 constitute the theme of the third part, where it is submitted that Member States can also be held liable for disregard of Community law by private individuals within their respected territories. To this extent, Schmidberger is viewed as a manifestation of this opinion, with fundamental rights acquiring a new dimension, being invoked by the States, contra the individuals as a shield to liability claims. Finally, the third part examines the relationship between the Francovich doctrine and the principle of legal certainty and concludes that the solutions employed by the ECJ have been both predictable and acceptable by the national legal orders. Keywords: State liability, damages, Francovich, Köbler, Schmidberger

Oikeustieteen ensimmäisen vuoden opiskelijoiden haasteet opiskelussa

The aim of this dissertation was to explore factors which affect first-year law students study success. A modified Biggs s 3P model was used as the theoretical framework. The model includes both personal and contextual factors in student learning. The participants were first-year law students from the academic years 2005-2008, and the data were collected through interviews, open-ended question and electronic questionnaires. Study I explored first-year law students spontaneous descriptions of their learning activities at the beginning of their studies as well as fast study pace law students who had already finished their first year. Even though, law students are selected through a demanding entrance examination, some of the beginner students mentioned using only one or very few learning activities, which were mainly non-generative strategies. On the other hand, it was typical for the fast study pace students to mention generative strategies and elements of organised effort in studying. Study II analysed the relationship between approaches to learning and study success in terms of earned study credits and grade point average among first-year law students in three years. Organised students and students applying a deep approach earned the highest number of credits and the highest grades, whereas students applying a surface approach and unorganised students applying a deep approach received the lowest number of credits and the lowest grades. The study confirms previous findings that organised students constitute the largest cluster among first-year law students. Study III explored factors affecting the study pace of law students during their first academic year. The factors mentioned by the students were classified into four categories of self-regulation: motivation, behaviour, cognition and context. The group of fast study pace students turned out to have good skills in all areas of self-regulation. Respectively, the slow study pace group showed more individual variation, and had weaknesses in one or more areas of self-regulation. In addition, students experienced, that other activities such as working affected their study pace, this could be constitute a fifth category. However, the slow and fast study pace students felt differently about work. According to the slow study pace students, work impeded their studying because it took up too much time. For their part, the fast study pace students were able to allocate their time effectively and felt working to be useful and a counterbalanced to their studying, as well as an opportunity to apply knowledge in practice. Study IV analysed differences in law students perceptions of their teaching-learning environments after three learning periods. The students perceptions were compared with pharmacy and veterinary students perceptions of their teaching-learning environments. The results showed that the law students experienced their teaching-learning environment more negatively than the pharmacy and veterinary students. The law students experienced that alignment, teaching for understanding, staff enthusiasm and support, along with constructive feedback were areas that could be developed at the Faculty. Together the four studies indicate that both law students learning skills and the teaching-learning environment could be further developed. The results imply that managing in the demanding teaching-learning environment of law requires student to effectively employ qualitative learning activities: organised studying and a deep approach to learning and good self-regulation skills. In addition to student counselling, it is important for students study success to direct the teaching-learning environment towards a more learning-focused than content-focused approach to teaching.