*sm*Article 11 Reception directive - Damages for breach of European Directive – Causation – Article 8 ECHR*em*
The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellant Negassi’s claim for damages based upon the admitted though unintentional breach of art 11(2) of the Reception Directive by the Home Office. The Court held that there could be no automatic reparation where there had been ‘a bona fide attempt at transposition’. The Court also assessed the claim for damages on the alternative ‘multi-factorial test’ and found that the breach, which had prevented Mr. Negassi working for a year, was not ‘sufficiently serious’ to warrant a claim for damages. The Court also held that when assessing causation the test was what the Respondent would have done if they had appreciated that her actions were unlawful, and therefore that a causal link had not been demonstrated. The Court also rejected the claim by the Appellant Lutalo that he had a right to take employment under art 11(1) of the Directive where his asylum appeal had been subject to severe delays. In the case of both Appellants the Court held that a prohibition on taking employment could breach article 8 but did not do so on the facts of the cases.