In Francovich and others v Italy cases C–6/90 and C–9/90, the ECJ held that as a matter of principle, a State which breaches its Treaty obligations by failing to implement a Directive in the time allowed, may be held liable to individuals for loss suffered by them as a result. This liability is subject to three conditions: (a) the result prescribed by the Directive should entail the grant of rights to individuals, (b) it should be possible to identify the content of those rights on the basis of the provisions of the Directive, (c) there is a causal link between the State’s breach of obligation and the loss and damage suffered. It has further been stated in Brasserie du Pécher SA v Germany and R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p. Factortame (cases C–46/93 and C–48/93) that in order to give rise to a right to reparation the breach must be ‘sufficiently serious’. This will depend on the circumstances of the case. For example, where a Member State is obliged to implement a Directive within a certain time, failure to do so will be a sufficiently serious breach per se. (Dillenkofer and others v Germany cases C–178/94 etc.) In that case an argument that the time limit was too short was rejected. It was further held that successful Art.169 (now Article 226) proceedings are not a prerequisite for state liability. In other cases it will be relevant to consider factors such as the clarity and precision of the rule breached, whether infringement was intentional or inadvertent, whether the Community objected or contributed towards an omission, and so on. (See, for example, R v HM Treasury ex p BT case C–392/93 and compare R v MAFF ex p Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd C–5/94.)