Q.3) Ruritania's decision not to transpose the age provisions of the Directive within the expected timescales implies that the prison guards Albus and Bellatrix will suffer damage resulting from the failure to implement the Directive 2000/78/ by Ruritania EC. The reason why Ruritania decided to extend transposition until 2006 was due to the construction of this new Parliament building, so these events would explain the further delay, but initially it took Ruritania six months to inform the Commission of its wish to extend the transposition period. The Commission was not immediately informed of Ruritania's decision and therefore Ruritania committed a violation of European Union law. The principle of state responsibility was conventional in the case of Francovich and Others v. Italy. Francovich and other workers enjoyed certain rights under the directive in question, which Italy had not implemented at the time. However, neither the direct nor the indirect effect could guarantee their rights due to Italy's failure to apply the former Directive 80/987. The Court of Justice held that in Francovich "a Member State is obliged to compensate individuals for losses and damages" caused by the State's failure to adopt a relevant directive. The principle established in the Francovich judgment was developed in the precedent of the Francovich judgment in the Factortame and Brasserie du Pêcheur cases. These cases recognized in their ruling a standard of three conditions that a Member State must be able to meet in order to be open for a breach of EU law below state responsibility. So in this case the state body responsible for the violation is the Parliament of Ruritania. The criterion of State responsibility is that the result of the Directive should lead to the granting of rights to individuals, these rights should be recognizable by the clause...... middle of the paper ......de suspension of national legislation which violates EU law. By then referring to this case, the European Court of Justice could effectively suspend the application of the Ruritanian law. As punishment under Article 263(3), Ruritania may incur a daily fine and a lump sum calculated in accordance with the 2005 Commission Communication. The possibility for Ruritania to present defenses under the procedures of Article 258 and of Article 260 TFEU is quite high. For example, the defense of an unreasonable deadline set by the Commission, which appears to be accepted in the Commission v Belgium case. The strongest and most reliable defense that Ruritania could rely on is an illegitimate obligation, i.e. bringing an annulment action under Article 263 since the State of Ruritania would honor the right to go to court and be heard, there would be no need to prove it their rights are threatened.