the notion of state liability, and created substantive rights for individuals in certain circumstanc TORTURE AND PUBLIC POLICY e.” The most understandable outcome of the Francovich judgement is that in each Member State national judges must pass a claim for damages opposing the Member state, if the specified conditions are completed. In any case, the National legal system acknowledges this case to be unimportant. A remedy system against the Member state should be made accessible within national laws on civil liability, but it is every state’s decision that which courts will be qualified to handle specific claims and to also resolve the planning prospect. In addition, the Francovich decision can perhaps be considered as a means of significant power to claim damages opposing any state who hasn’t enforced a directive within the appropriate time period. Evidently, Member States can be in TORTURE AND PUBLIC POLICY  breach of Community law in many different ways, which is not by non-reversing of a directive. The decision was not made up until the Brasserie du Pecheur case and later cases that if the Francovich principle would apply to others breaches of Community law including legislative, administrative and judicial acts or breaches. Brasserie du Pecheur Sa v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others is one of the most important cases regarding liability of the Member States for breaches of Union law which discusses that the Court eventually clarified three required conditions in order to get compensation of the loss for the individuals. Sufficiently serious breach is one of the required conditions out of the three. The Court was able to establish this required con TORTURE AND PUBLIC POLICY dition from the Schöppenstedt test. It is also introduced as discretion which is accessible to the national authority as a foundation to determine if there was a breach of sufficient seriousness or not. One of the conditions which is significant to build the liability of Member State for breaches of Union law was sufficiently serious breach. In deciding the conditions governing liability, the Court emphasized that the account should be concerning the principles built-in the Union law, its full capability and efficient judicial stability of every individuals’ rights TORTURE AND PUBLIC POLICY  which arises from Union Law. In addition, the Court was able to institute that in similar conditions, which consisted of the sufficiently serious breach, which will affect the liability of the Member States despite the violation is capable of being traced to the le>