![handle is hein.journals/eurlawreo6 and id is 1 raw text is: [2002] EuLR
A NABADDA AND OTHERS v WESTMINSTER CITY
COUNCIL
GOMILSEK v HARINGEY LONDON BOROUGH
COUNCIL
B Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Peter Gibson, Waller and Buxton LJJ
3 February 2000
Damages - Breach of Community law - Discrimination on grounds of nationality -
Whether damages claim sustainable under national anti-discrimination legislation
Race Relations Act 1976
C
Facts
The four claimant Swedish students had each attended a course in England which was
accepted for the purposes of the application as being vocational. Each of them had
received student loans from a Swedish organisation known as SNB. Each claimant
D had also applied to their English local authority for a fees-only grant, being a grant
to cover fees and not maintenance. The local authorities refused to grant any of the
claimants a full award, citing the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1997,
reg. 23. That regulation provided that a qualifying student shall not be given a full
award if he receives from other sources any scholarship or similar award equalling the
amount of his fees, but also provided exceptions for awards or loans made under var-
E ious English statutes. The Regulations were amended in 1998 to also exempt similar
loans and awards made under the legislation of other member states. As a result of this
change the claimants were notified that they would receive full grants in 1998 and
thereafter.
The claimants sued the respondent local authorities claiming that as a result of the
initial refusals they had suffered injured feelings and that this injury was compensable
as damages under s. 57(4) of the Race Relations Act 1976. The defendants conceded
F that the refusals constituted discrimination on the grounds of nationality contrary to
what was then Art. 6 of the EC Treaty. The judge dismissed the claims on the basis
that s. 41 of the 1976 Act precludes recovery where the alleged discrimination arose
out of acts done pursuant to an enactment, Order in Council or instrument made
under any enactment by a Minister or the Crown. The students appealed, contending
that by applying s. 41 the judge failed to give effect to the precedence of Community
G law.
Held, dismissing the appeal
1. Violations of Community law may entitle a claimant to damages in one of two
H ways. The first is that a Directive or other instrument of Community law may con-
tain requirements as to the penalties or compensation that must be provided by
member states in the event of a breach. The second is that damages may be recov-
ered pursuant to the principle in Case C-6/90 Francovich v Italy [1991] ECR 1-5357
Q 2002 Hart Publishing Ltd.
CCC 1091-3297/02/010001-9](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/eurlawreo6&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most