Unfortunately EU law has not been recognised for its full potential and legal rights it bestows upon its members. All too often in the press hearing negative stories about how the EU is interfering in our daily lives. Nothing could be further from the truth, politicians often used EU law to cover up their own mistakes or to put the blame elsewhere. They have in general failed to give full perspective to what Britain signed up to in 1971.
The principal institutions of the EU are assembly or parliament, the Council of ministers, the commission and the court of justice. What we have to remember here its that there are 27 countries in the EU, to agree a fair amount of flexibility and compromise must be excuted. The EU derives its power from the treaty of Rome 1957. It was feared that the founding states originally agreed that closer economic union would be of substantial benefit to them. They define some objectives in this treaty but how they would reach them left that open for the member states themselves to decide. It was recognised even in the 1950s that individual countries can no longer compete against the powerhouse of the American economy where the only way to protect each country's rights was to form and economic union with each other. This union was seen as political co-operation between the states with signing the various accession treaties the governments of these countries knew that they were giving up legal supremacy to the EU. Were the effectiveness was not seen for many years until the ECJ gave direct effect legal rulings in such cases as Van Gend and Francovich .

When the ECJ does seek them to give individuals of the European Union empowerment so that when a state fails to implement specific directives individuals can seek readdress through the ECJ. This has been established in such cases as Van Gend en Loos. The principle of direct effect under article 25 of the EC treaty.

If we take the case of Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl [1994] ECR I-3325. The Company Recreb concluded a contract with Miss Faccini Dori at Milan Central Railway Station for an English language correspondence course. Some days later, by registered letter Miss Faccini Dori informed that company that she was cancelling her order. Recreb did not accept the cancelation notice and asked the Giudice Conciliatore di Firenze to order Miss Faccini Dori to pay it the agreed sum with interest and costs. The judge ordered Miss Faccini Dori to pay the sums in question, to which order she lodged an objection with the same judge. The judge stayed the procedings to receive the answer from the ECJ in preliminary ruling on whether it can apply the directive in question. (directives are EU Law that need to be implemented) At the material time Italy had not taken any steps to transpose the directive into national law, although the period set for transposition had expired. The judge ruled she could. This decision in this case manages to balance the rights of the individual with jurisdiction of the individual state and insure that justice is done for both. Miss Faccini Dori should be able to relay on EC directives even if they have not been implemented.

The case above is one of many examples where individuals seek an answer to their problems. By being a member of the EU individuals concerned can more often than not go to the ECJ when their own country is in breach of EU Law (common business practices). From a business point of view it would be ludicrous to think that a contract would hold a different value in a different country with EU law.