BOSPHORUS HAVA YOLLARI TURİZM VE TİCARET ANONİM ŞİRKETİ v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 25 the domestic courts, but it will take precedence over conflicting domestic law pursuant to the principle of supremacy of Community law1. The conditions for acquiring direct effect are that the provision “contains a clear and unconditional prohibition which is not a positive but a negative obligation. This obligation, moreover, is not qualified by any reservation on the part of the States which would make its implementation conditional upon a positive legislative measure enacted under national law. The very nature of this prohibition makes it ideally adapted to produce direct effects in the legal relationship between States and their subjects” 2. 93. Certain EC Treaty provisions are considered to have direct effect, whether they impose a negative or positive obligation and certain have been found to have, as well as “vertical” effect (between the State and the individual), a horizontal effect (between individuals). Given the text of Article 189 (now Article 249), the provisions of regulations are normally considered to have direct effect, both vertically and horizontally. Directives and decisions can, in certain circumstances, have vertical direct effect, though recommendations and opinions, having no binding force, cannot generally be relied on by individuals before national courts. (b) The principles of indirect effect and State liability 94. The rights an individual may claim under Community law are no longer confined to those under directly effective Community provisions: they now include rights based on the principles of indirect effect and State liability developed by the ECJ. According to the principle of “indirect effect” (“interprétation conforme”), a member State's obligations under Article 5 (now Article 10) require its authorities (including the judiciary) to interpret as far as possible national legislation in the light of the wording and purpose of the relevant directive3. 95. The principle of State liability was first developed in Francovich4. The ECJ found that, where a State had failed to implement a directive (whether or not directly effective), it would be obliged to compensate individuals for resulting damage if three conditions were met: the directive conferred a right on individuals; the content of the right was clear from the provisions of the directive itself; and there was a causal link between the State's failure to fulfil its obligation and the damage suffered by the person affected. In 1996 the ECJ extended the notion of State liability to all 1. See Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, Case 11/70 [1970] ECR 1125. 2. Laid down in Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie des Belastingen, Case 26/62 [1963] ECR 1. 3. See Von Colson and Kamann v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Case 14/83 [1984] ECR 1891, and Marleasing S.A. v. La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación S.A., Case C106/89 [1990] ECR I-4135. 4. Francovich and Others v. Italian Republic, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 [1991] ECR I-5357.