JPEU: case law
Inhoudsopgave
1 The judicial system of the EU ....................................................................................... 9
1.1 Primacy of European Law ............................................................................................................... 9
C-573/17 Poplawski ............................................................................................................................... 9
C-378/17 Minister for Justice and Equality (Ireland) (§38).................................................................. 11
1.2 Rule of law – article 19 (1)(2) TEU – article 2 TEU – article 47 Charter ........................................... 11
C-619/18 Commission v. Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court)............................................ 11
C-192/18 Commission v. Poland (Independence of ordinary courts) ................................................. 12
C-585/, 624, 625/18 A.K. and others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme
Court)................................................................................................................................................... 13
C-824/18 A.B. and others (Procedure for appointment to a position of judge at the Supreme Court of
Poland) ................................................................................................................................................ 14
C-896/19 Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru .............................................................................................. 15
C-791/19 Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime applicable to judges) ....................................... 16
C-487/19 W.Z. v. Pokurator (Poland) (Transfer without his consent of a judge – Appointment of a
judge by the President of the Republic despite a court decision to suspend the procedure) ............ 17
1.3 Duty under EU law to challenge ................................................................................................... 18
1.3.1 General rule .................................................................................................................................... 18
C-234/04 Kapferer ............................................................................................................................... 18
2 Action for infringement ............................................................................................. 20
2.1 Definition of the infringement ..................................................................................................... 20
C-235/17 Commission v. Hungary ....................................................................................................... 20
C-62/89 Commission v. France ............................................................................................................ 21
2.2 Accountability of the infringement to the Member States ........................................................... 22
C-265/95 Commission v. France .......................................................................................................... 22
C-249/81 Commission v. Ireland ......................................................................................................... 22
2.3 Definition of a State ..................................................................................................................... 23
C-574/10 Commission v. Germany ...................................................................................................... 23
C-27/03 Commission v. Belgium .......................................................................................................... 23
C-416/17 Commission v. France .......................................................................................................... 23
2.4 Burden of proof ........................................................................................................................... 23
C-166/21 Commission v. Poland §71 ................................................................................................... 23
2.5 Member State against Member State (Art. 259 TFEU) .................................................................. 23
C-141/78 France v. UK ......................................................................................................................... 23
C-388/95 Belgium v. Spain................................................................................................................... 24
C-145/04 Spain v. UK ........................................................................................................................... 25
C-364/10 Hungary v. Slovakia .............................................................................................................. 26
C-591/17 Austria v. Germany .............................................................................................................. 26
C-457/18 Slovenia v. Croatia ............................................................................................................... 27
C-121/21 Czech Republic v. Poland (Mine of Turów) .......................................................................... 28
1
, 2.6 Notion of reasonable time ........................................................................................................... 28
C-293/85 Commission v. Belgium (para. 14) ....................................................................................... 28
C-523/04 Commission v. Netherlands (para. 27)................................................................................. 29
C-78/18 Commission v. Hungary ......................................................................................................... 29
2.7 Moment to judge the existence of the infringement .................................................................... 29
C-619/18 Commission v. Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court)............................................ 29
2.8 No extension of the subject matter .............................................................................................. 30
C-276/19 Commission v. UK ................................................................................................................ 30
2.9 First application of the financial penalty ...................................................................................... 31
C-387/97 Commission v. Greece ......................................................................................................... 31
2.10 First case with lump sum AND penalty payment .......................................................................... 32
C-304/02 Commission v. France .......................................................................................................... 32
2.11 Mitigating circumstance............................................................................................................... 33
C-270/11 Commission v. Sweden §55 ................................................................................................. 33
C-842/19 Commission v. Belgium §34 ................................................................................................. 33
2.12 The effects of a judgment of the Court finding an infringement ................................................... 33
C-543/17 Commission v. Belgium ........................................................................................................ 33
C-549/18 Commission v. Romania....................................................................................................... 35
C-550/18 Commission v. Ireland ......................................................................................................... 39
C-628/18 Commission v. Slovenia ....................................................................................................... 43
C-658/19 Commission vs Spain ........................................................................................................... 46
3 Action for annulment ................................................................................................ 51
3.1 Who is involved or which acts are targeted? ................................................................................ 51
C-294/83 Les Verts v. European Parliament ........................................................................................ 51
C-193 and 194/87 Maurissen v. Court of Auditors .............................................................................. 51
C-370/89 SGEEM v. EIB ........................................................................................................................ 52
T-411/06 Sogelma v. European Agency for Reconstruction ................................................................ 52
T-117/08 Italy v. European Economic and Social Committee.............................................................. 54
3.2 Authors of reviewable acts? ......................................................................................................... 54
3.2.1 No: ................................................................................................................................................... 54
T-395/11 ELTI v. Delegation of the EU in Montenegro ........................................................................ 54
T-192 and 257/16 NF-NM v. European Council ? ............................................................................... 55
C-424/20P(R) Representatives of the Member States v. Sharpston ................................................... 56
C-105 and 109/15 Mallis v. Commission and ECB (Eurogroup) ........................................................... 57
C-597/18P Council v. Chrysostomides a.o. (Eurogroup) ...................................................................... 58
3.2.2 Yes: .................................................................................................................................................. 58
T-329/17 Hautala v. AESA .................................................................................................................... 58
T-716/14 Tweedale v. AESA ................................................................................................................. 58
3.3 Which acts can be challenged? ..................................................................................................... 59
3.3.1 Existing acts: .................................................................................................................................... 59
T-12/11 Iran Insurance Cy v. Council ................................................................................................... 59
T-228/02 Organisation of Modjahedines of Iran v. Council................................................................. 59
3.3.2 No binding effect:............................................................................................................................ 60
C-131/03 Reynolds v Commission ....................................................................................................... 60
T-261/09P Commission v. Violetti ....................................................................................................... 61
2
, T-458/17 Shindler v. Council ............................................................................................................... 62
T-192 and 257/16 NF-NM v. European Council .................................................................................. 62
C-16/16P Belgium v. Commission ........................................................................................................ 63
C-911/19 Fédération bancaire française (FBF) v. ACPR ...................................................................... 63
3.3.3 Examples of reviewable acts despite their form or nature: ............................................................ 64
C-325/91 France v. Commission .......................................................................................................... 64
C-303/90 France v. Commission .......................................................................................................... 64
C-108/83 G-D Lux v. European Parliament .......................................................................................... 64
C-27/04 Commission v. Council ........................................................................................................... 64
T-3/93 AirFrance v. Commission.......................................................................................................... 65
3.4 Which acts cannot be challenged? ............................................................................................... 65
3.4.1 Confirmatory acts:........................................................................................................................... 65
C-516/06P Commission v. Ferriere Nord ............................................................................................. 65
3.4.2 Internal instructions: ....................................................................................................................... 65
T-236/00 Stauner a.o. v. European Parliament and Commission (yes) ............................................... 65
T-222 and 329/99 Martinez a.o. v. European Parliament (no) ............................................................ 66
T-252/10 Cross Czech v. Commission .................................................................................................. 66
3.5 Grounds for annulment................................................................................................................ 66
3.5.1 Competence: ................................................................................................................................... 66
C-57/95 France v. Commission ............................................................................................................ 66
T-27/03 SP v. Commission ................................................................................................................... 66
C-376/98 Germany v. European Parliament and Council .................................................................... 67
3.5.2 Essential procedural requirement:.................................................................................................. 67
C-644/17 Eurobolt (yes) ...................................................................................................................... 67
C-68/86 UK v. Council (yes) ................................................................................................................. 67
C-107/99 Italy v Commission (yes) ...................................................................................................... 67
T-209/04 Spain v. Commission (no) ..................................................................................................... 68
C-341 and 342/06P Chronopost (yes).................................................................................................. 68
C-17/74 Transocean Association (yes)................................................................................................. 69
3.5.3 Misuse of powers: ........................................................................................................................... 69
C-59 and 129/80 Turner v. Commission .............................................................................................. 69
3.6 Who can act? ............................................................................................................................... 69
C-166/78 Italy v. Council ...................................................................................................................... 69
T-496/11 UK v. ECB .............................................................................................................................. 70
T-236/06 Landtag Schleswig Holstein v. Commission ......................................................................... 70
C-872/19P République bolivarienne du Venezuela v. Council of the European Union ....................... 70
3.6.1 Direct concern ................................................................................................................................. 71
T- 345/05 Mote v. European Parliament (yes) .................................................................................... 71
C-231/82 Spijker Kwasten v. Commission (no) ................................................................................... 72
C-519/07P Commission v. KFC (yes) ................................................................................................... 73
C-15/06P Regione Sicilia v. Commission (no) ..................................................................................... 73
C-386/96 Dreyfus v Commission (yes) ................................................................................................ 74
3.6.2 Individual concern ........................................................................................................................... 75
C-231/82 Spijker Kwasten v. Commission (no) ................................................................................... 75
C-26/86 Deutz und Geldermann v Council (yes) ................................................................................. 75
C-152/88 Sofrimport v Commission (yes) ............................................................................................ 76
C-11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission (yes) ........................................................................................ 76
C-309/89 Codorníu v Council (yes) ...................................................................................................... 77
C-483/07P Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission (no) .......................................................................... 77
3
, 3.6.3 Synthesis ......................................................................................................................................... 78
C-106,232/19 Italian Republic and Comune di Milano v. Council and European Parliament.............. 78
3.6.4 Individual and direct concern .......................................................................................................... 78
T-150/05 Sahlstedt and Others v Commission ................................................................................... 78
C-362/06 Sahlstedt and Others v Commission .................................................................................... 79
3.6.5 New Art. 263(4) TFEU ...................................................................................................................... 79
C-50/00P Union de Pequenos Agricultores v. Council ......................................................................... 79
3.7 Regulatory act ............................................................................................................................. 79
Act entailing implementing measures ................................................................................................. 79
3.7.1 Yes – No application of article 263 §4 ............................................................................................. 79
C-274/12P Telefonica v. Commission .................................................................................................. 79
C-456/13P TL Sugar v. Commission ..................................................................................................... 80
C-145/17P Internacional de Metálicos v, Commission ........................................................................ 80
3.7.2 No – Application of article 263§4 .................................................................................................... 80
T-339,352,391/16 Paris, Brussels, Madrid v. Commission but annulled by C-177/19 Paris, Brussels,
Madrid v. Commission (no direct concern, see infra).......................................................................... 80
C-622/16P Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v. Commission ....................................................... 80
C-99/21P Danske Slagtermestre v. Commission.................................................................................. 81
3.7.3 No but no application of article 263 §4 because no direct concern: .............................................. 81
C-177/19P Germany v. Commission (setting aside T-339,352,391/16) ............................................... 81
C-313/19P Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus v. Commission .......................................................... 81
3.8 Procedure .................................................................................................................................... 82
T-115/94 Opel Austria v. Council ......................................................................................................... 82
C-312/18P Eco Bat Technologies v. Commission ................................................................................. 82
C-498/19P Romania v. Commission..................................................................................................... 82
T-565/19 Oltchim v. Commission ........................................................................................................ 82
T-620/20 Alessio v. ECB ....................................................................................................................... 82
3.8.1 Force majeure – Excusable error .................................................................................................... 82
C-284/82 Busseni v. Commission (no) ................................................................................................. 82
C-209/83 Ferriera Valsabbia SpA v Commission (no) .......................................................................... 83
T-12/90 Bayer v. Commission (no) ..................................................................................................... 83
T-125/06 Centro studi Manieri v. Council (yes and no) ....................................................................... 84
3.8.2 Effects of the judgment ................................................................................................................... 85
C-402/05P Kadi and Al Barakaat v. Council and Commission (paras. 373-376) ................................... 85
3.8.3 Full jurisdiction ................................................................................................................................ 85
C-99/17P Infineon Technologies.......................................................................................................... 85
4 Failure to act ............................................................................................................. 89
4.1 Notion and conditions ................................................................................................................. 89
T-715/19: Lukas Wagenknecht v European Council ............................................................................ 89
4.2 Procedure – Reasonable time ...................................................................................................... 92
C-59/70 Netherlands v Commission .................................................................................................... 92
C-170/02 Schlüsselverlag a.o v Commission........................................................................................ 92
5 Action for damages ................................................................................................... 94
5.1 Notion of institution (Article 340(2) TFEU) ................................................................................... 94
C-370/89 SGEEM and Etroy v EIB (yes) (see also annulment) ............................................................. 94
T-209/00 F. Lamberts v. European Ombudsman (yes) (confirmed) .................................................... 95
4
, C-597,598,603,604/18P Council v. Chrysostomides – paragraph. 97 (no – Eurogroup) (see also
annulment) .......................................................................................................................................... 96
5.2 Which EU defendant? .................................................................................................................. 97
T-209/00 F. Lamberts v. European Ombudsman (supra) – paragraph 48 ........................................... 97
C-353/88 Briantex and Di Domenico v. EEC and Commission – paragraph 7 ...................................... 97
C-758/19 OH v. ID – paragraph 35 ....................................................................................................... 97
5.3 Examples of EU liability ................................................................................................................ 98
C-104/89 Mulder and others v. Council and Commission ................................................................... 98
C-650/19P Vialto vs Commission – paragraphs 137-148 ................................................................... 100
C-619/20P and C-620/20P International Management Group v. Commission ................................. 100
5.4 No fault liability of the EU? ........................................................................................................ 100
T-69/00 FIAMM v. Council and Commission – paragraphs 157-160 ................................................. 100
C-120,121/06P FIAMM v. Council and Commission – paragraphs 175,176,179 ............................... 101
C-414/08 Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v. Commission – paragraph 141 ................................................. 101
5.5 Liability of Member States for breach of EU law ......................................................................... 101
C-6/90 Francovich and Bonifaci v. Italy ............................................................................................. 101
C-46/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen / Secretary of State for
Transport, ex parte Factortame and Others ...................................................................................... 105
C-178/94 Dillenkofer and others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland .................................................... 109
C-278/20 Commission v. Spain .......................................................................................................... 111
C-352/98 Bergaderm and Goupil v. Commission............................................................................... 111
C-472/00 Commission v. Fresh Marine ............................................................................................. 113
6 Preliminary rulings .................................................................................................. 115
6.1 Interpretation ............................................................................................................................ 115
6.1.1 A court or tribunal in the sense of Article 267(2) TFEU................................................................. 115
A. Principles ....................................................................................................................................... 115
C-55/20, Minister Sprawiedliwości v Prokurator Krajowy (para 56-79, para 60) .............................. 115
B. Established by law ......................................................................................................................... 118
C-132/20, BN (para 121-130)............................................................................................................. 118
C. Not the arbitrators ........................................................................................................................ 120
C-102/81 Nordsee ............................................................................................................................. 120
C-109/88 Danfoss .............................................................................................................................. 121
C-377/13 Ascendi .............................................................................................................................. 121
C-555/13 Merck Canada .................................................................................................................... 123
C-284/16 Achmea (opinion and judgement) ..................................................................................... 124
D. Charged with the settlement of disputes and bound to apply rules of law to decide .................. 127
C-210/06 Cartesio .............................................................................................................................. 127
C-462/19 Anesco (para 41-50) ........................................................................................................... 128
C-53/03 Syfait .................................................................................................................................... 130
E. Independence-impartiality ............................................................................................................ 131
C-24/92 Corbiau ................................................................................................................................ 131
C-274/14 Banco Santander (judgement 21/1/20) ............................................................................. 132
C-53/03 Syfait .................................................................................................................................... 133
C-462/19 Anesco (para 38-40) ........................................................................................................... 134
6.1.2 Conditions of a preliminary reference .......................................................................................... 134
A. A case before a national judge which does not concern a purely internal situation .................... 134
C-472/17 Di Girolamo (para 31) ........................................................................................................ 134
5
, C-268-15 Ullens de Schooten (para 50-53) ........................................................................................ 135
B. Which has a sufficient connection with EU law ............................................................................ 136
C-299/95 Kremzow ............................................................................................................................ 136
C-558,563/18 Lowicz (para 49) .......................................................................................................... 137
C. Which is not fictitious.................................................................................................................... 137
C-104/79 Foglia v. Novello................................................................................................................. 137
6.1.3 Faculty to refer (courts of first instance on appeal) ...................................................................... 138
C-166/73 Rheinmühlen...................................................................................................................... 138
C-188,189/10 Melki Abdeli ................................................................................................................ 138
C-173/09 Elchinov.............................................................................................................................. 139
C-8/19 R.H. ........................................................................................................................................ 140
C-564/19 IS ........................................................................................................................................ 140
6.1.4 Obligation to refer (supreme courts) ............................................................................................ 140
C-283/81 Cilfit.................................................................................................................................... 140
C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management (para 49-51) ..................................................................... 141
6.1.5 Sanction of this obligation............................................................................................................. 142
C-224/01 Köbler ................................................................................................................................ 142
C-416/17 Commission v. France ........................................................................................................ 143
6.1.6 What can the preliminary reference relate to? ............................................................................ 143
C-617/10 Akerberg Fransson ............................................................................................................. 143
C-665/13 Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins ................................................... 144
C-322/88 Grimaldi (para 9) ................................................................................................................ 144
C-16/16P Belgium v. Commission (para 44) ...................................................................................... 144
C-297/88 and 197/89 Dzodzi ............................................................................................................. 145
C-88/91 Federconsorzi v. AIMA ......................................................................................................... 145
6.1.7 End of the procedure .................................................................................................................... 146
C-210/06 Cartesio .............................................................................................................................. 146
6.1.8 Special procedures ........................................................................................................................ 147
C-604/19 Wrocław (para 42-47) ........................................................................................................ 147
6.1.9 Effects............................................................................................................................................ 147
C-177/20 Grossmania (para 37-46) ................................................................................................... 147
6.1.10 Effects – limitation of temporal effects .................................................................................... 149
C-163/90 Legros ................................................................................................................................ 149
C-363/93 Lancry ................................................................................................................................ 149
C-437/97 Evangelischer Krankenhausverein ..................................................................................... 150
6.2 Validity ...................................................................................................................................... 151
6.2.1 Monopoly of the CJEU ................................................................................................................... 151
C-314/85 Foto-Frost .......................................................................................................................... 151
C-461/03 Schul (opinion and judgement).......................................................................................... 151
6.2.2 What can the preliminary reference on the validity relate to?..................................................... 153
C-501/18 BT (para 78-83) .................................................................................................................. 153
6.2.3 Inadmissibility if action for annulment was possible .................................................................... 153
C-355/95 TWD ................................................................................................................................... 153
C-135/16 Georgsmarienhütte a.o...................................................................................................... 155
6.2.4 Effects (Ex Tunc – Erga Omnes) ..................................................................................................... 156
C-66/80 SpA International Chemical Corp ......................................................................................... 156
7 Objection of illegality .............................................................................................. 157
7.1 Definition .................................................................................................................................. 157
6
, T-9/99 HFB v. Commission................................................................................................................. 157
7.2 Acts concerned .......................................................................................................................... 159
C-542, 543/18RX-II E. Simpson and HG v. Council and Commission (paras 51-58) ........................... 159
7.3 Right of the Member States to raise the objection illegality ....................................................... 160
C-442/04 Spain v. Commission .......................................................................................................... 160
C-241/01 National’s Farmers Union .................................................................................................. 160
C-74/91 Commission v. Germany ...................................................................................................... 161
C-475/01 Commission v. Greece ....................................................................................................... 161
C-620/16 Commission v. Germany (para 89)..................................................................................... 161
8 Appeals ................................................................................................................... 162
8.1 The appeal cannot change the subject matter of the case .......................................................... 162
C-47/10 P Austria v. ScheuchenrFleisch a.o. (paras 123-124) ........................................................... 162
8.2 Points of law – distortion of points of fact.................................................................................. 162
C-164/98 P DIR International film a.o. v. Commission (paras 43-48) ................................................ 162
C-204/00 P Aalborg Portland a.o. v. Commission (paras 381 to 285) ............................................... 163
8.3 New article 58a of the Statute of the Court- First admission of an appeal .................................. 177
C-382/21 P- The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR ................................................................. 177
9 Opinions.................................................................................................................. 177
C-317/04 European Parliament v. Council......................................................................................... 177
10 Interim measures ................................................................................................. 179
10.1 Examples ................................................................................................................................... 179
C-195/90 R Commission v. Germany ................................................................................................. 179
C-441/17 R Commission v. Poland (Białowieża Forest) ..................................................................... 179
C-121/21 Czech Republic v. Poland (Mine of Turów) ........................................................................ 180
C-204/21 R Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary Chamber) ............................................................... 181
C-204/21 R-RAP Commission v Poland (Disciplinary Chamber)......................................................... 182
10.2 Substantive requirements .......................................................................................................... 182
10.2.1 Urgency ..................................................................................................................................... 182
C-619/18 R Commission v. Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court)....................................... 182
C-35/15 P(r) Commission v. Vanbreda Risk and Benefits (para 41) ................................................... 185
T-158/17 R Post Telecom v. EIB (para 21) ........................................................................................ 185
10.2.2 Fumus bonus iuris ..................................................................................................................... 185
C-424/20 P(R) Representatives of the Governments of the Member States v. Eleanor Sharpston .. 185
10.2.3 Balance of interests .................................................................................................................. 186
C-45/87 R Commission v. Ireland ...................................................................................................... 186
C-87/94 R Commission v. Belgium ..................................................................................................... 187
C-791/19 R Commission v. Poland (Disciplinary regime of the judges) (paras 104-111)................... 188
10.2.4 Other competences – Article 273 TFEU .................................................................................... 190
C-648/15 Austria v. Germany ............................................................................................................ 190
C-457/18 Slovenia v. Croatia ............................................................................................................. 192
10.2.5 CFSP – Article 275 TFEU ............................................................................................................ 192
C-72/15 PJSC Rosneft Oil Company v Her Majesty's Treasury and Others – paragraphs 66,68,76,81
........................................................................................................................................................... 192
C-134/19P Bank Refah Kargaran v Council – paragraphs 23 to 52 .................................................... 193
T-286/15 KF v EU Satellite Centre (paras 59-114) (appeal dismissed)............................................... 197
7
,8
,1 The judicial system of the EU
1.1 Primacy of European Law
C-573/17 Poplawski
28 The referring court is therefore unsure whether, under the principle of the primacy of EU law, it can
disapply the provisions of Netherlands law which are incompatible with the provisions of a framework
decision, even if the latter provisions do not have direct effect. It states that, if it disapplied Article 6(2)
and (5) of the OLW, there would no longer be any ground for refusing to surrender Mr Popławski to the
Polish authorities.
52 In order to answer that question, it should be noted, in the first place, that EU law is characterised by
the fact that it stems from an independent source of law, the Treaties, by its primacy over the laws of
the Member States and by the direct effect of a whole series of provisions which are applicable to their
nationals and to the Member States themselves. These essential characteristics of EU law have given
rise to a structured network of principles, rules and mutually interdependent legal relations linking the
EU and its Member States, and its Member States with each other.
53 The principle of the primacy of EU law establishes the pre-eminence of EU law over the law of the
Member States.
54 That principle therefore requires all Member State bodies to give full effect to the various EU
provisions, and the law of the Member States may not undermine the effect accorded to those various
provisions in the territory of those States.
55 In that regard, it should be pointed out that the principle that national law must be interpreted in
conformity with EU law, by virtue of which the national court is required, to the greatest extent possible,
to interpret national law in conformity with the requirements of EU law, is inherent in the system of the
treaties, since it permits the national court, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to ensure the full
effectiveness of EU law when it determines the dispute before it.
56 Similarly, the full effectiveness of EU rules would be impaired and the protection of the rights which
they grant would be weakened if individuals were unable to obtain reparation when their rights are
infringed by a breach of EU law for which a Member State can be held responsible.
57 It follows from the foregoing that, in order to ensure the effectiveness of all provisions of EU law, the
primacy principle requires, inter alia, national courts to interpret, to the greatest extent possible, their
national law in conformity with EU law and to afford individuals the possibility of obtaining redress where
their rights have been impaired by a breach of EU law attributable to a Member State.
58 It is also in the light of the primacy principle that, where it is unable to interpret national law in
compliance with the requirements of EU law, the national court which is called upon within the exercise
of its jurisdiction to apply provisions of EU law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if
necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even if
adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for that court to request or await the prior setting aside of
such provision by legislative or other constitutional means.
72 In the third place, it should be recalled that, although the framework decisions cannot have direct
effect, their binding character nevertheless places on national authorities an obligation to interpret
national law in conformity with EU law as from the date of expiry of the period for the transposition of
those framework decisions (judgment of 8 November 2016, Ognyanov, C-554/14, EU:C:2016:835,
paragraphs 58 and 61).
9
, 73 When applying national law, those authorities are therefore required to interpret it, to the greatest
extent possible, in the light of the text and the purpose of the framework decision in order to
achieve the result sought by that decision (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 June 2005, Pupino,
C-105/03, EU:C:2005:386, paragraph 43; of 5 September 2012, Lopes Da Silva Jorge, C-42/11,
EU:C:2012:517, paragraph 54; of 8 November 2016, Ognyanov, C-554/14, EU:C:2016:835, paragraph
59; and of 29 June 2017, Popławski, C-579/15, EU:C:2017:503, paragraph 31).
74 However, the principle of interpreting national law in conformity with EU law has certain limits.
75 Thus, the general principles of law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity,
preclude inter alia that obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law from leading to the
criminal liability of individuals being determined or aggravated, on the basis of a framework decision
alone, in the absence of any legislation implementing its provisions, where they committed an
infringement (judgments of 8 November 2016, Ognyanov, C-554/14, EU:C:2016:835, paragraphs 63 to
64 and the case-law cited, and of 29 June 2017, Popławski, C-579/15, EU:C:2017:503, paragraph 32).
76 Similarly, the principle of conforming interpretation cannot serve as the basis for an interpretation of
national law contra legem (judgment of 29 June 2017, Popławski, C-579/15, EU:C:2017:503, paragraph
33 and the case-law cited). In other words, the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU
law ceases when the former cannot be applied in a way that leads to a result compatible with that
envisaged by the framework decision concerned (judgment of 8 November 2016, Ognyanov, C-554/14,
EU:C:2016:835, paragraph 66).
77 That being so, the principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law requires
that the whole body of domestic law be taken into consideration and that the interpretative methods
recognised by domestic law be applied, with a view to ensuring that the framework decision concerned
is fully effective and to achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it (see, to that
effect, judgments of 5 September 2012, Lopes Da Silva Jorge, C-42/11, EU:C:2012:517, paragraph 56;
of 29 June 2017, Popławski, C-579/15, EU:C:2017:503, paragraph 34; and of 12 February 2019, TC,
C-492/18 PPU, EU:C:2019:108, paragraph 68).
78 In that context, the Court has already held that the obligation to interpret domestic law in conformity
with EU law requires national courts to change established case-law, where necessary, if it is based on
an interpretation of domestic law that is incompatible with the objectives of a framework decision and to
disapply, on their own authority, the interpretation adopted by a higher court which it must follow in
accordance with its national law, if that interpretation is not compatible with the framework decision
concerned (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 April 2016, DI, C-441/14, EU:C:2016:278, paragraph 33,
and of 29 June 2017, Popławski, C-579/15, EU:C:2017:503, paragraphs 35 and 36).
79 Consequently, a national court cannot validly claim that it is impossible for it to interpret a provision
of national law in a manner that is consistent with EU law merely because that provision has consistently
been interpreted in a manner that is incompatible with EU law (judgments of 8 November 2016,
Ognyanov, C-554/14, EU:C:2016:835, paragraph 69, and of 6 November 2018, Max-Planck-
Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, C-684/16, EU:C:2018:874, paragraph 60) or is applied
in such a manner by the relevant national authorities.
109 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that the principle of the primacy of
EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a national court to disapply a provision
of national law which is incompatible with the provisions of a framework decision, such as the framework
decisions at issue in the main proceedings, the legal effects of which are preserved in accordance with
Article 9 of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the treaties, since those provisions
do not have direct effect. The authorities of the Member States, including the courts, are nevertheless
required to interpret their national law, to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with EU law, which
10
