But even when directives have direct effect, they generally do not have horizontal direct effects. Why has the Court shown such ‘childish’ loyalty to the no-horizontal- direct- effect rule? Has that rule not created more constitutional problems than it solves? And is the Court perhaps discussing a ‘false problem’? [2.] For if the Court simply wishes to say that an (unimplemented) directive may never directly prohibit private party actions [PPAs], [3.] this does not mean that it cannot have horizontal direct effects [HDE] in civil disputes challenging the legality of State actions.199
199 This – much – simpler reading of the substance of the case law would bring directives close to the normative character of Art. 107 TFEU – prohibiting State aid. For while the provision can be invoked as against the State as well as against a private party, it cannot prohibit private aids by private companies.
Pls ELI5 the boldened sentence? It has too many negators for me to fathom.
What's the scope of "never"? Does this mean "an (unimplemented directive) can sometimes directly allow PPAs" or "an (unimplemented directive) can only INdirectly prohibit PPAS"?