EU Law - Cases

Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-8419 (Tobacco Advertising) FACTS

Directive relating to banning of advertising of tobacco products in the Community was adopted. Germany (A) brought proceedings for the annulment of the Directive, contending that the characteristics of the market for tobacco products were not such as made the market suitable for harmonisation. The result would be a distortion of competition in the market. A also argued that a measure like that had to actually contribute to the improvement of the internal market.

Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-8419 (Tobacco Advertising) POINT OF LAW

Held, that Articles 100a (now Article 114 TFEU), 57(2), and 66 EC could only be used as the legal basis for legislation that genuinely aims to improve the functioning of the internal market. Measures must have a real and direct link to the removal of trade barriers or distortions of competition within the internal market.

Case C-58/08 Vodafone [2010] ECR I-4999 POINT OF LAW

In order to meet proportionality the measure must not be manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue.

Case C-210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I-11893; [2005] 1 CMLR 26 FACTS

C wanted to market snus in the UK which was prohibited by domestic law. This provision implemented an EU Directive. C brought a claim claiming that this breached Community law.

Case C-210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I-11893; [2005] 1 CMLR 26 POINT OF LAW

Where there are or are likely to be obstacles to trade, Art 114 TFEU may be used to harmonise the laws, provided it is done in conjunction with key legal principles like proportionality.

Cases C-154/04 & C-155/04 Alliance for Natural Health [2005] ECR I-6451; [2005] 2 CMLR 61 POINT OF LAW

Recourse to Art 114 TFEU as a legal basis was possible where there were differences between Member States which were such as to obstruct the fundamental freedoms and thus had a direct effect on the functioning of the internal market. To satisfy the principle of subsidiarity, the measure must be better achieved by the Community than the Member States, for example because of coordination. However, where the goal is harmonisation (like under art 114), and the measure gets past the hurdle of conferral, it seems more or less subsidiarity-proof.

Case C-380/03 Germany v. Parliament and Council [2006] ECR I-11573; [2007] 2 CMLR 1 ("Tobacco Advertising II") POINT OF LAW

A mere difference in the laws was not enough to rely on Art 114 TFEU, but a difference that was enough to obstruct the fundamental freedoms was. Provided the conditions in Art 114 were fulfilled the Community legislature could not eb prevented from relying on that legal basis just because public health protection was a decisive factor in the choices to be made. Thus, where Member States were about to take divergent measures with respect to a product or a class of products which brought about different levels of protection and thus prevented the products from moving freely, Art 114 authorises the legislature to intervene.

Case T-526/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami et al v. Commission, judgment of 25 April 2013; [2013] 3 CMLR 28 POINT OF LAW

So long as a measure is justified by Art 114 TFEU because it helps the market, it is hard to get it shut down because of other factors like shutting down part of the market and a focus on other factors like animal welfare.

Case C-482/17 Czech Republic v. Parliament and Council 3 December 2019 [2020] 2 CMLR 16 POINT OF LAW

The choice of legal basis for an EU measure had to rest on objective factors that were amenable to judicial review; those included the aim and content of the measure.

Case 240/78 Atalanta [1979] ECR 2137 POINT OF LAW

It is contrary to the principle of proportionality for an EU Regulation, or a part thereof, to prescribe a blanket punishment that does not consider the seriousness of the breach punished.

Case 114/76 Bela-Mühle [1977] ECR 1211 POINT OF LAW

The principle of proportionality means that the burdens imposed on the persons concerned must not exceed the steps required to meet the public interest involved.

Case C-375/96 Galileo Zaninotto v. Ispettorato Centrale [1998] ECR I-6629 POINT OF LAW

When conducting judicial review for proportionality, the legality of a measure can be affected only if the measure is 'manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue'.

Case C-233/94 Germany v. Parliament (Deposit Guarantee Directive) [1997] ECR I-2405 POINT OF LAW

While there is an obligation on the EU legislature to give reasons as to why the measure is compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, there is no obligation that that be expressly stated.

Case C-491/01 ex parte British American Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453 POINT OF LAW

The principle of subsidiarity applies where the Community legislature uses Art 114 TFEU, because it does not give it exclusive competence to regulate economic activity on the internal market and the principle applies whenever the legislature does not have exclusive competence.

Case C-114/01 AvestaPolarit Chrome Oy [2003] ECR I-8725 POINT OF LAW

Subsidiarity can be used as an interpretive principle by the CJEU; where there are two possible interpretations, the Court is entitled to prefer the one which is consistent with subsidiarity.

Case C-518/07 Commission v. Germany [2010] ECR I-1885 POINT OF LAW

Subsidiarity was not infringed despite a measure changing the legal order of a country if it was only what was necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty.

Case C-547/14 Philip Morris POINT OF LAW

Parties to a challenge on subsidiarity must enunciate the reasons behind their challenge; it is against the spirit of cooperation and the Rules of Procedure to do otherwise.

Case 120/86 Mulder [1988] ECR 2321 FACTS

Court held that the contested regulation on milk quotas could not be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee a quota to producers who returned to the market after suspending production for a limited period.

Case 120/86 Mulder [1988] ECR 2321 POINT OF LAW

Legitimate expectation is a general principle by which a regulation can be invalid because it has breached. EU non-contractual (Art 340) liability: arises only where a sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule protecting individuals occurs; in fields of wide legislative discretion, liability requires a manifest and grave disregard of limits on powers, and loss beyond normal economic risk.

Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschel [1977] ECR 1753 POINT OF LAW

A finding of illegality for breach of non-discrimination did not necessarily involve a declaration of incompatibility of the contested regulation. Equal treatment could be restored in several ways and it was for the Community institutions responsible for administering the common agricultural policy to take into account economic and political considerations and to select the appropriate course of action.

Case C-144/04 Mangold [2005] ECR I-9981 POINT OF LAW

The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age was a general principle of Community law. General principles area both horizontally and vertically directly effective.

Case C-427/06 Bartsch [2008] ECR I-7245 POINT OF LAW

The application of the prohibition under Community law of discrimination on the ground of age was not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contained no link with Community law.

* Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci [2010] ECR I-365 (Grand Chamber) POINT OF LAW

Provisions of the Treaty containing specific expressions of the general principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination have horizontal direct effect.

Case C-13/05 Sonia Chacon Navas [2006] ECR I-6467 POINT OF LAW

Discrimination based on sickness was not a general principle. The general principles should not be extended by interpretation when it was clear that that was not what was intended by the legislature.

Case C-101/08 Audiolux [2009] ECR I-9823 POINT OF LAW

Just because Community legislation lays down provisions protecting a group is not sufficient in itself to establish the existence of a general principle of Community law, esp if the scope of those provisions is limited to rights which are well defined and certain. They do not therefore possess the general, comprehensive character which is otherwise naturally inherent in general principles of law.

Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125 FACTS

German traders challenge system of deposits established by Community agricultural regulations on the ground that it ran contrary to the fundamental rights protected by the German Constitution, especially proportionality and the freedom to pursue trade and professional activities.

Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft [1970] ECR 1125 POINT OF LAW

Respect for fundamental rights forms an integral part of the general principles of law protected by the Court of Justice. The protection of such rights, whilst inspired by the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, must be ensured within the framework of the structure and objectives of the Community. The status and effect of norms of EU law can only be evaluated according to norms of EU law, by the ECJ, and cannot be affected even by norms relating to fundamental rights in national constitutional law.

Case C-159/90 SPUC v Grogan [1991] ECR I-4685 POINT OF LAW

Fundamental rights do not apply to areas outside of Convention law. However, the AG took a different approach, arguing that it was within EU law so did apply.

Case C-60/00 Mary Carpenter [2002] ECR I-6279 FACTS

M, an immigrant, applied for leave to stay after marrying P. The Immigration Adjudicator concluded that despite it being a valid and genuine marriage, M had no right to remain in the UK because P had not exercised his right to reside in another Member State and therefore the situation did not fall under Community law.

Case C-60/00 Mary Carpenter [2002] ECR I-6279 POINT OF LAW

Community legislature recognises the protection of family life as essential to ensuring the effective exercise of fundamental freedoms. Furthermore, like under Art 8 ECHR, respect for family life is a fundamental right under Community law and interference is only lawful if it was in accordance with the law, motivated by legitimate aims, and necessary in a democratic society. Public interest could only justify a measure restricting freedom to provide services if it was compatible with fundamental rights.

Joined Cases C-402/05P & C-415/05P Kadi and Al Barakaat v. Council [2008] ECR I-6351 POINT OF LAW

Respect for human rights is a condition of the lawfulness of Community rights, and measures incompatible with respect for human rights are not acceptable in the Community.

Case C-236/09 Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats et al v. Council, [2011] ECR I-773 POINT OF LAW

Example of a provision of Directive being held invalid for violation of the Charted (specifically, the principle of equal treatment).

Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12 Digital Rights Ireland et al POINT OF LAW

Example of a Directive being held invalid for violation of the Charter, specifically Directive 2006/24 on data retention held invalid for violation of Arts. 7 & 8 Charter.

Case C-134/15 Lidl GmbH (30 June 2016) POINT OF LAW

Example of the more common position of the Court not striking down legislation for violation of the Charter. Labelling obligations imposed on poultry-meat producers limit the exercise of the freedom to conduct a business (Art 16 Charter), but that freedom is not absolute (see Art 52(1) Charter), and the rules genuinely meet objectives of general interest.

Case C-617/10 Fransson (judgment of 26 February 2011) POINT OF LAW

According to art 51(1)of the Charter, the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the MSs only when they are implementing EU law. That means they are only enforceable against MSs in that situation, but within that they are applicable every time it applies.

Cases C-203/15 and C-698/15 Tele2 Sverige, & Watson, Brice, Lewis (judgment of the Grand Chamber, 21 December 2016) POINT OF LAW

The fundamental rights outlined in the Charter must be considered when interpreting Directives. Implementation should not interfere with Charter rights, and if they do, the interference should be proportionate to the legitimate aim to be achieved.

Case C-64/16 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses (the 'Portuguese judges' case, 27 February 2018) POINT OF LAW

Court accepted that a Member State may not be 'implementing' EU law with the result that it is not bound by the Charter, but that it may nevertheless be acting within fields covered by EU law and so is subject to obligations concerning its judicial structure drawn from Article 19 TEU. So there are situations where the Charter does not apply, but EU law, specifically Article 19 TEU, does.

Case C-619/18 Commission v. Poland, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531, Grand Chamber, 24 June 2019 POINT OF LAW

Article 19(1) TEU can be read in light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union so as to ensure that Member States uphold fundamental rights and values common to the MSs, like judicial independence, within their own jurisdictions.

Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1 POINT OF LAW

EU Treaties are capable of direct effect, provided they are clear and unconditional. If a national norm is in the way, it must be disapplied.

Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585 POINT OF LAW

in the event that there is a conflict between a norm in the EEC Treaty and a subsequent national norm, the latter cannot take precedence over the former. The EU norm must prevail. The test of whether a court of last instance must refer a question to the ECJ depends on whether the court tor tribunal's decision is subject to appeal in the type of case in question. The ECJ was prepared to correct improperly framed references.

Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629 POINT OF LAW

Every (even lowly first instance courts) national court hearing a case within its jurisdiction must apply EU law in its entirety, setting aside and disapplying national law if necessary.

Cases C-10-22/97 Ministero delle Finanze v. IN.CO.GE [1998] ECR I-6307 POINT OF LAW

"The incompatibility with Community law of a subsequently adopted rule of national law does not have the effect of rendering that rule of national law non-existent. Faced with such a situation, a national court is obliged to disapply that rule."

Joined Cases C-188/10 & C-189/10 Melki, Abdeli [2010] ECR I-5667 POINT OF LAW

National courts have an obligation of their own volition to set aside incompatible provisions of national law. EU law must take full effect immediately, and its application cannot depend on another authority's discretion, even temporarily. National courts should interpret the national law it had to apply, so far as possible, in a manner which accorded with the requirements of EU law.

Case C-399/11 Stefano Melloni, judgment of 26 February 2013 POINT OF LAW

Rules of national law, even of a constitutional or human rights nature, cannot be allowed to undermine the effectiveness of EU law on the territory of that State.

Case C-614/14 Ognyanov (5 July 2016), ECLI:EU:C:2016:514 POINT OF LAW

The national courts have a wide discretion of when to issue a preliminary reference, but they must do so with enough of a submission of the facts and law at issue.

Case C-284/16 Achmea, (Grand Chamber) 6 March 2018, EU:C:2018:158 POINT OF LAW

Articles 267 and 344 TFEU prevent MSs from submitting disputes involving the interpretation or application of EU law to any other dispute-settlement body. This is because they undermine the autonomy, primacy, and uniform interpretation of EU law.

2 BvR 2728/13, Decision of 21 June 2016 of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court)🍻POINT OF LAW

German Constitutional Court held that the decision of the ECB was not admissible, but that the decision of the German Government not to review the ECB decision was. The GCC held that it will exercise its ultra vires as well as identity review competences in an EU-friendly manner: the exercise of the review functions will only come in play in exceptional cases, they are only to be exercised by the Constitutional Court, and the Court will only activate them after the CJEU has a chance to scrutinise the EU measure and with consideration of their decision, granting them a certain leeway. However, because it sees the legitimacy of the EU in Germany as coming from the German demos, if the EU acts ultra vires it will strike.

Brunner [1994] 1 CMLR 57 (on ratification of the Maastricht Treaty)🍻POINT OF LAW

German acceptance of the primacy of EU law was conditional. The Court would not relinquish its pwoer to decide on the compatibility of Community law with the fundamentals of the German constitution and would continue to exercise a power of review of the scope of Community competence.

Re the Lisbon Treaty, BVerfG, 2 BvE 2/08, 30 June 2009, (on the German ratification of the Lisbon Treaty)🍻POINT OF LAW

The primacy of application of Union law only applies by virtue and in the context of the constitutional empowerment that continues in effect. The Treaties must not encroach on the national constitutional identity of the States, including in particular areas relating to the private life of citizens.

Honeywell [2011] 1 CMLR 1067 (on the Court of Justice's interpretative methodology)🍻POINT OF LAW

Ultra vires review of European bodies by Members States must be possible, but it must not be all the time. Ultra vires review by the BverfG can only be considered if it is "manifest" that acts of the European bodies and institutions have taken place outside the transferred competences. A breach of principle of conferral is only manifest if the European bodies and institutions have transgressed their boundaries in a manner specifically violating the principle of conferral. Some suggestion that this case held that ultra vires review was reserved only for what we would loosely call 'constitutional essentials'.

Case C-493/17 Heinrich Weiss and others (Weiss/PSP) POINT OF LAW

The case itself was not that relevant but its response from the German Court was; in this case they gave a preliminary ruling on an ECB policy that was later held to be ultra vires in Germany.

Weiss, 1 BvR 859/15, 5 May 2020🍻POINT OF LAW

The Bundesverfassungsgericht finally decided to bite: it held that the judgment manifestly exceeds the mandate conferred upon it, resulting in a structurally significant shift in the order of competences to the detriment of the MSs. To this extent, the judgment is ultra vires and has no binding effect in Germany.

Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19 POINT OF LAW

Where the CJEU reaches a decision which, in the light of the clear language of a treaty, oversteps the jurisdictional limits set by the MSs, a domestic court must decide for itself what is consistent with its own domestic constitutional arrangements.

Case C-344/04 IATA [2006] ECR I-0403 POINT OF LAW

The mere fact that a party before the national court contends that the dispute gives rise to a question concerning EU law does not mean that the court is compelled to consider that a question has been raised within the meaning of Art 267 TFEU.

Sanofi Pasteur v. France (13 February 2020) POINT OF LAW

A refusal by a national judge to request a preliminary ruling under Art 267 TFEU is contrary to the ECHR as a violation of the Art 6 ECHR right to a fair trial, but usually only where the national court has not given sufficient reasons.

Georgiou v. Greece (57378/18, 14.3.2023) (ECtHR) POINT OF LAW

The domestic procedure should be re-opened where an Article 267 request has been refused by a domestic court without reason.

Case 104/79 Foglia v. Novello 1 [1980] ECR 745 POINT OF LAW

The CJEU may refuse to give a ruling on a preliminary reference where the case is artificial and silly.

Case 244/80 Foglia v. Novello 2 [1981] ECR 3045 POINT OF LAW

The CJEU would be the ultimate decider of its own jurisdiction. It's duty under Art 267 TFEU is to assist in administration of justice, so where it was not necessary for that objective to give a ruling, it would not do so.

Case 283/81 CILFIT [1982] ECR 3415 FACTS

Ps alleged that certain duties imposed by Italian law were in breach of a Regulation. The Italian Health Ministry urged the Italian Court of Cassation, against whose decisions there was no judicial remedy under national law, not to refer the matter to the ECJ, because the answer was so obvious as to remove the need for a reference. The court decided that this contention was itself an issue of Community law.

Case 283/81 CILFIT [1982] ECR 3415 POINT OF LAW

National courts can dispose of cases without the need for a further reference to the CJEU. They can do so where there is an EU decision on the point, where the matter is so clear as to obviate the need for a reference, or where more general responsibility has been delegated to them in a particular area. [The latter one might come from a different case].

Case 83/91 Meilicke [1992] ECR I-4871 POINT OF LAW

Where a preliminary reference concerns the interpretation of a provision of Community law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. However, the spirit of cooperation means that the CJEU should not have to rule on hypotheticals, so the national court should in some cases make rulings on the necessary fact and law before making the reference.

Case C-160/14 Ferreira da Silva e Brito, Judgment of 9 September 2015 POINT OF LAW

When there was no judicial remedy under national law against the decision of a court or tribunal, that court was in principle obliged to bring the matter before the CJEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law was raised before it, unless it had established that the question raised was irrelevant or that the provision of EU law concerned had already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct application of EU law was so obvious as to leave no scope for reasonable doubt. This had to be assessed in the light of the specific characteristics of EU law, the particular difficulties to which the interpretation of the latter gave rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the EU. A procedural rule of national law that made it very difficult in practice to enforce EU law rights was unlawful.

Case C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management, Judgment of 6 October 2021 POINT OF LAW

Shored up the CILFIT test for preliminary references and added a requirement that a national court of last resort must give reasons for not referring. In other words, they must explain how the case falls within the CILFIT exceptions.

Case 314/85 Foto Frost [1987] ECR 4199 POINT OF LAW

National courts do not have the power to declare invalid Community law; that power is reserved for the CJEU.

Case 143/88 Zuckerfabrik [1991] ECR I-415

Suspension of enforcement of a national measure adopted in implementation of a Community regulation may be granted by a national court only if that court entertains serious doubts as to the validity of the Community measure and, should the question of the validity of the contested measure not already have been brought before the Court, itself refers that question to the Court; if there is urgency and a threat of serious and irreparable damage to the applicant; and if the national court takes due account of the Community's interests.

Case C-465/93 Atlanta [1995] ECR I-3761 POINT OF LAW

Where a national measure is challenged because of the alleged invalidity of the EU regulation on which it was based, the national court can grant interim relief. Certain conditions must, however, be met. The national court must have serious doubts about the validity of the EU measure and must have referred the measure to the CJEU for a ruling. The interim relief must be necessary to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the applicant. The national court must take due account of the Union interest and respect any decision of an EU Court already given on the substance of the disputed measure.

Case C-68/85 T Port v. Bundesanstalt, etc [1996] ECR I-6065 POINT OF LAW

National courts have no power to grant interim relief in cases where the existence of individual rights depends on a future act of the European Commission which has not yet been adopted. In such situations, only the Community courts (the EU judiciary) can provide judicial protection or review the Commission's failure to act.

Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke [1994] ECR I-833 POINT OF LAW

A challenge under Art 267 will not be possible if the matter could have been raised by a person who had standing under Art 263, and who knew of the matter within the time limits for direct action.

Case C-408/95 Eurotunnel SA v. Seafrance [1997] ECR I-6315 POINT OF LAW

A private party may challenge the validity of provisions of a Directive in a national court, if it is not obvious that an action would have been possible under Article 263.

C-573/17 Daniel Adam Popławski (24 June 2019) POINT OF LAW

A national court is not required, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply a provision of its national law which is contrary to a provision of EU law if the latter does not have direct effect. This seemingly confirms the Trigger model.

Case 43/75 Defrenne v. Sabena [1976] ECR 455 POINT OF LAW

Treaty provisions are both vertically and, most pertinently for this case, horizontally directly effective.

Case 41/74 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337 FACTS

P, a Dutch national, was refused leave to enter the UK because she intended to work at a scientology establishment.

Case 41/74 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337 POINT OF LAW

Directives can be vertically directly effective.

Case 148/78 Ratti [1979] ECR 1629 POINT OF LAW

Directives are only capable of direct effect once the date for implementation has passed, as the freedom / discretion of MSs evaporates at this point. Member States should be prevented from relying, as against individuals, on their own failure to implement directives.

Case 152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723 POINT OF LAW

Directives must be sufficiently clear to be vertically (meaning against an 'emanation of the state') directly effective after the expiration of the grace period. In this case, the court took a wide view of the state to allow C to successfully make a claim using the Directive (D was a Health Authority).

Case C-188/89 Foster v. British Gas [1990] ECR I-3313 POINT OF LAW

The Foster Test: A directive could be relied on against organisations or bodies which were subject to the authority or control of the State or had special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals.

Case C-413/15 Elaine Farrell (judgment of 10 October 2017) POINT OF LAW

The characteristics in Foster are disjunctive, meaning a body only need to display one of (subject to the authority or control of the State or had special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals) to be considered an emanation of the state and for Directives to be directly effective against them like they are against states.

Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori v. Recreb [1994] ECR I-3325 POINT OF LAW

In this case, the Court clearly confirmed that directives do not have horizontal direct effect. However, what was notable about this case was the vehement disagreement from A-G Lenz, who argued that directives should be horizontally directly effective in order to prevent inequality between citizens both within countries (whether they have dealings with state vs not) and between countries (different rights and obligations depending on whether the MS has implemented the directive).

Joined Cases C397/01 to C403/01 Pfeiffer and Others [2004] ECR I-8835 POINT OF LAW

Directives are not strictly horizontally directly effective, but national courts have an obligation to interpret national law so far as possible in line with EU law. This means that where there is a directive incorrectly adopted by MSs, their national courts may be able to give de facto horizontal direct effect through interpretation.

Case C-555/07 Seda Kücükdeveci, [2010] ECR I-365 POINT OF LAW

Once a national legislature have implemented a Directive, the national court has a duty, so far as possible, to interpret the law compatibly with the Directive. General principles of EU law can be horizontally directly effective.

Case C-122/17 David Smith v. Patrick Meade 7 August 2018 POINT OF LAW

A national court, hearing a dispute between private persons, which finds itself unable to interpret provisions of its national law in a manner compatible with a directive, is not obliged, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply its national law.

Case C-261/20 Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN POINT OF LAW

Even if a directive's provision is clear and unconditional, because directives cannot impose obligations on individuals, a court cannot disregard national law that conflicts with it if doing so would impose extra duties on an individual. However, national courts or authorities may still set aside domestic law that conflicts with EU law, provided this is done under national legal principles allowing it.

Case C-68/17 IR v. JQ, judgment of 11 September 2018 POINT OF LAW

The requirement to interpret national law in a manner consistent with EU law included the obligation for national courts to change their established case law, where necessary, if it was based on an interpretation of national law that was incompatible with the objectives of a Directive.

Case C-569, 570/16 Bauer, Brossonn, 6 November 2018 POINT OF LAW

The requirement to interpret national law in conformity with EU law had limits, in particular that it did not permit an interpretation of national law contra legem.

Case C-106/89 Marleasing SA v. La Comercíal [1990] ECR I-4135 POINT OF LAW

Directives can have horizontal indirect effect, meaning that national law must be interpreted as far as possible in line with the directive.

Case 80/86 Kolpinghuis Nijmegen [1987] ECR 3969 POINT OF LAW

In applying its national law, a national court must interpret that law in the light of the wording and purpose of a relevant directive. A directive cannot, of itself and independently of a law adopted for its implementation, have the effect of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal law of a person who acts in contravention of the provisions of the directive.

Case C-387 Silvio Berlusconi [2005] ECR I-3565 POINT OF LAW

Unimplemented directives are not, of themselves, capable of imposing obligations on individuals, so they cannot determine or aggravate criminal liability.

Case C-456/98 Centrosteel v. Adipol [2000] ECR I-6007 POINT OF LAW

Directives preclude national legislation. The national court is bound to interpret domestic law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive, so that those provisions are applied in a manner consistent with the result pursued by the Directive.

Case C-212/04 Adeneler [2006] ECR I-6057 POINT OF LAW

The obligation on national courts to interpret domestic law in conformity with the directive exists only once the period of transposition has expired. But, from the date of the directive coming into force, the national courts have a duty to refrain from interpreting domestic law in a manner which might seriously compromise the attainment of the objective of the directive.

C-268/06 Impact [2008] ECR I-2483 POINT OF LAW

National courts must interpret national law so far as possible in conformity with EU law, including directives. However, they must not do so if that would be contra legem, specifically looking at the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity.

Case C-441/14 Dansk Industri (19 April 2016)

Courts must interpret national law as far as possible in line with the directive's wording and purpose, using recognised interpretative methods. However, this duty does not allow contra legem interpretations. If existing national case law conflicts with a directive, courts must revise it; they cannot claim conformity with EU law is impossible simply because of past inconsistent interpretations.

Case C-194/94 CIA Security International SA v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL [1996] ECR I-2201 POINT OF LAW

An individual can plead a directive in an action against another individual, and the directive can affect the outcome of the case so long as it does not directly impose obligations on the private defendant.

Case C-443/98 Unilever Italia v. Central Food [2000] ECR I-7535 POINT OF LAW

CJEU disagreed with A-G Jacobs, saying that there was no difference between proceedings bewteen competitors about unfair trading practices and contractual disputes, at least from the point of view of whether a procedural defect can render national laws unenforceable against individuals.

Case C-201/02 R (Wells) v. Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2004] ECR I-723 POINT OF LAW

Legal certainty prevents directives from creating obligations for individuals. For them, the provisions of a directive could only create rights. On the other hand, mere adverse repercussions (as opposed to legal obligations) on the rights of third parties, even if the repercussions are certain, do not justify preventing an individual from invoking the provisions of a directive against the MS concerned.

Case 33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz [1976] ECR 1989 FACTS

Applicants applied for a refund, including interest, of charges they had paid in Germany for import inspection costs, which had been applied in violation of the Treaty. The national time limit for contesting the validity of national administrative measures had passed, and the case was referred to the CJEU to see whether EU law required that they be granted the remedy sought.

Case 33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz [1976] ECR 1989 POINT OF LAW

If there are no EU rules specifying the remedies and procedures available for breach of EU law then the matter is left to national law. The position would be different only if the conditions and time-limits made it impossible in practice to exercise the rights which the national courts are obliged to protect.

Case 45/76 Comet [1976] ECR 2043 POINT OF LAW

Established the principle of equivalence: the conditions governing actions based on Union law may not be less favourable than those governing judicial proceedings based on domestic law.

Case C-213/89 Factortame (No. 1) [1990] ECR 1-243 POINT OF LAW

EU law requires national courts to grant interim relief needed to ensure the effectiveness of EU rights. Therefore, if national law would prevent a court from granting such relief, the court must disapply that national rule.

Cases 143/88 & 92/89 Zuckerfabrik Suderdithmarschen [1991] ECR I-415 POINT OF LAW

Where national authorities implement EU regulations, individuals must be able to challenge the validity of those regulations before national courts and trigger a preliminary reference to the CJEU. Only the CJEU's potential finding of invalidity can justify suspending the regulation's effect. National courts may apply their own procedural rules when granting an interim stay, but must follow EU substantive principles—mirroring the approach of the CJEU President, especially regarding urgency—when assessing whether such interim relief should be granted.

Case C-465/93 Atlanta [1995] ECR I-3761 POINT OF LAW

Where a national measure is challenged because of the alleged invalidity of the EU regulation on which it was based, the national court can grant interim relief. Certain conditions must, however, be met. The national court must have serious doubts about the validity of the EU measure, and must have referred the measure to the Court for a ruling. The interim relief must be necessary to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the applicant. The national court must take due account of Union interest and respect any decision of an EU Court already given on the substance of the disputed measure.