Judgments
Case Notes from EJP Reading List - CJEU cases
- Course
- Institution
Notes with corresponding paragraphs for all cases in EJP
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
abbyshanahan
Reviews received
Content preview
Lecture 1: In search of EU procedural law: Nationalprocedural autonomy and its limits
Case law
Case 33-76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz [1976] EU:C:1976:188
- Preliminary ruling
- Principle of cooperation → national courts to ensure legal protection of directly effective
provisions [5]
- In absence of Community rules, for domestic legal system of MS to determine procedural and
institutional conditions (national procedural/institutional autonomy), governing actions at law
intended to ensure protection of the rights which citizens have from directly effective provisions –
conditions cannot be less favorable than those relating to similar actions of a domestic nature [5]
- Time-limits
- Allowed, but cannot be so strict to make it impossible in practice to exercise the rights
which the national courts are obliged to protect [5]
- Reasonable periods of limitation of actions are fine [5]
- Time-limits here are in line with the fundamental principle of legal certainty [5]
- Individuals can challenge national law by saying it is incompatible with Community law; national
authority can defend saying time-limit has expired; but procedural conditions (time-limit) cannot
be less favorable than those for similar domestic cases – i.e., shouldn’t disadvantage them more
than if it was a purely national law case [6]
- While EU law allows citizens to challenge national decisions based on incompatibility
with EU law, they must still adhere to national procedural rules, including time limits.
However, these national rules cannot be less favorable to EU law-based claims than to
similar national law-based claims. This ensures a level playing field and prevents
discrimination against EU law claims.
- Principle of equivalence → EU law-based claims cannot be treated less favorably than purely
national claims
- Principle of effectiveness → procedural rules in national laws must not make the exercise of EU
law rights ‘practically impossible or excessively difficult’
Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] EU:C:1986:206
- General principle of EU law = effective judicial protection [18]
- Constitutional traditions common to the MS
- Interpreted Art. 6 of the Directive in light of principle of EJP → all persons have the right to
obtain an effective remedy in a competent court against measures which they consider to be
contrary to the principle of equal treatment for men and women laid down in the directive [19]
- For MS to ensure effective judicial control (EJP) as regards compliance with the
applicable provisions of EU law and of national legislation intended to give effect to the
rights for which the directive provides [19]
,Case 158/80 Rewe (Butter Buying Cruises) [1981] EU:C:1981:163
- Some possibilities for private person to bring direct actions before the ECJ – but not intended to
create new remedies in the national courts to ensure the observance of Community law other than
those already laid down by national law [44]
- System of legal protection established by the Treaties (especially with preliminary reference
procedure), implies that it must be possible for every type of action provided for by national law
to be available for the purpose of ensuring observance of Community provisions having direct
effect, on the same conditions concerning the admissibility and procedure as would apply were it
a question of ensuring observance of national law [44]
Case C-213/89 Factortame [1990] EU:C:1990:257
- Extent of the power of national courts to grant interim relief where rights claimed under
Community law are at issue [1]
- Commission said UK failed to fulfil its obligations – also applied to Court for an interim order
- For national courts, in principle of cooperation, to ensure legal protection which persons derive
from directly effective EU provisions [19]
- Full effectiveness of Community law would be impaired if national law could prevent a court, in
a dispute governed by EU law, from granting interim relief in order to ensure the full
effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the right claimed under EU law [21]
- If a court in those circumstances would grant interim relief, if it weren’t for the national
law rule, is obliged to set aside that rule [21]
- Interpretation reinforced by system established by Art. 267 TFEU (preliminary reference
procedure) whose effectiveness would be impaired if a national court, having stayed proceedings
pending reply of ECJ to the question referred by PRP, were not able to grant interim relief until it
delivered its judgment following the reply given by the ECJ [22]
- A national court which, in a case before its concerning Community law, considers the sole
obstacle which precludes it from granting interim relief is a rule of national law must set aside
that rule [23]
Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] EU:C:2006:755
- Preliminary ruling on the interpretation of effective judicial protection of an individual’s rights
under Community law
- Question 1 – about free-standing action
- Principle of EJP is a general principle of EU law stemming from the constitutional
traditions common to the MS [37]
- In ECHR (arts. 6 and 13) and CFR (art. 47)
- Principle of cooperation – for the MS to ensure judicial protection of an individual’s
rights under EU law [38]
- Absence of EU rules – then fora domestic legal system = national procedural and
institutional autonomy [39]
- No new remedies – Rewe para 44 [40]
, - Only ‘new’ remedy if the overall scheme of the national legal system in question had no
legal remedy which made it possible to ensure, even indirectly, respect of an individual’s
rights under Community law [41]
- While it is, in principle, for national law to determine an individual’s standing and legal
interest in bringing the proceedings, Community law nevertheless requires that the
national legislation does not undermine the right to EJP [42]
- For MS to establish a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure
respect for EJP [42]
- So procedural rules safeguarding an individual’s rights under EU law must be no less
favorable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence); and
must nor render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights
conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness) [43]
- Rewe principles – para 5
- National courts should interpret procedural rules in a way to enable them to be
implemented as to contribute to ensuring EJP of an individual’s rights under EU law [44]
- For this case → EJP doesn’t require it to be possible to bring a free-standing action which
seeks primarily to dispute the compatibility of national provisions with Union law – as
long as Rewe principles are observed in the system of judicial remedies [47]
- Equivalence met – no less favorable than for domestic disputes
- Effectiveness met – various indirect legal remedies exist for this purpose
- Unibet has remedies which ensure EJP – paras 56-61; exception at para 62
- So, EJP doesn’t mean that a national legal order of a MS must provide for a free-standing
action for an examination of whether national provisions are compatible with EU law, as
long as there are other effective legal remedies (Rewe principles) [65]
- Second question – whether EJP requires it to be possible in a MS to obtain interim relief
suspending the application of national measures until the competent court has given a ruling on
whether those measures are compatible with Union law [66]
- Factortame para 21→ court seized of a dispute governed by Union law must be in a
position to grant interim relief in order to ensure full effectiveness of the judgment to be
given on the existence of the rights claimed under Union law [67]
- When uncertain under national law whether an action to safeguard respect for an
individual’s EU rights is admissible, principle of EJP requires national court to be able to
grant interim relief necessary to ensure those rights are respected [72]
- But EJP doesn’t require it to be possible to obtain interim relief from national court in the
context of an application that is inadmissible under that MS’ law, provided that Union law
doesn’t call into question that inadmissibility [73]
- Principle of EJP must be interpreted as requiring it to be possible in the legal order of a
MS for interim relief to be granted until the competent court has given a ruling on
whether national provisions are compatible with EU law, where the grant of such relief is
necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of
such rights [77]
- Third question – whether, with regard to EJP, the grant of interim relief to suspend the application
of such provisions until ruling given is governed by national law criteria or Union criteria [78]
- Governed by national procedural law, but is in all MS subject to conditions which are
uniform and analogous with the conditions for applications for interim relief brought
before EU court [79]
- But doesn’t apply here → Unibet’s application for relief concerns the effects of
national legislation where the compatibility of it with EU law is questioned [79]
- Only applies in situations to suspend the effects of a national provision adopted
in accordance with an EU regulation where the legality of that regulation is
contested [79]
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller abbyshanahan. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.23. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
52510 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now