Einde inhoudsopgave
Remedies for infringements of EU law in legal relationships between private parties (LBF vol. 18) 2019/5.6.1
5.6.1 Restriction of the temporal effect of the ruling
mr. I.V. Aronstein, datum 01-09-2019
- Datum
01-09-2019
- Auteur
mr. I.V. Aronstein
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS141498:1
- Vakgebied(en)
EU-recht / Algemeen
Burgerlijk procesrecht / Algemeen
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Cf. Paras. 73-74 of Advocate General Kokott’s Opinion of 30 September 2010. CJ 26 April 1994, Case C-228/92 (Roquette Frères), para. 17; CJ 8 February 1996, Case C-212/94 (FMC), para. 55. Vandamme 2005, pp. 53 and 70-72.
Nos. 232 and 236. Cf. Opinion Kokott of 30 September 2010, para. 76. CJ 15 January 1986, Case 41/84 (Pinna I), paras. 26-28; CJ 8 November 2001, Case C-228/99 (Silos), para. 36; CJ 10 March 1992, Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90 (Lomas), para. 24; and CJ 22 December 2008, Case C-333/07 (Régie Networks), para. 122. CJ 8 April 1976, Case 43/75 (Defrenne II), paras. 74-75. CJ 27 March 1980, Case 61/79 (Denkavit Italiana), paras. 16-18. CJ 3 October 2002, Case C-347/00 (BarreiraPérez), paras. 44-45.
Formerly Article 231 EC. Cf. paras. 75-76 of Advocate General Kokott’s Opinion. Although on the basis of Article 264 TFEU also the General Court has jurisdiction to declare an act void, only the case law of the Court of Justice is relevant to the study at hand; the case law of the General Court is left out of consideration.
Formerly Article 231 EC respectively Article 234 EC. CJ 9 November 2010, Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 (Volker), para. 93. CJ 22 December 2008, Case C-333/07 (Régie Networks), para. 121 and the case law cited. CJ 10 March 1992, Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90 (Lomas), para. 23. CJ 8 November 2001, Case C-228/99 (Silos), para. 35. CJ 15 October 1980, Case 145/79 (Roquette), paras. 51-52.
It has done so for example in: CJ 22 December 2008, Case C-333/07 (Régie Networks), paras. 121 and 122. CJ 10 March 1992, Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90 (Lomas), paras. 23-24. CJ 15 January 1986, Case 41/84 (Pinna I), paras. 26-29.
CJ 15 January 1986, Case 41/84 (Pinna I), para. 29. Cf. CJ 27 February 1985, Case 112/83 (Produits de maïs), para. 18. Opinion Jacobs of 5 April 2001 in Case C-393/99 (Hervein II), paras. 106-107. See also Opinion Darmon 27 October 1993, Case C-228/92 (Roquette Frères), para. 51.
256. In principle, when the Court of Justice declares an instrument of Union law to be invalid, that invalidity has retroactive effect.1 As noted before, the Court of Justice can restrict the temporal effect of a ruling concerning the interpretation or the invalidity of a provision of Union law in case of overriding considerations of legal certainty that justify such a restriction.2 The limited temporal effect of a ruling of the Court of Justice thus relates to the legal situations to which the ruling applies – i.e. whether or not it applies to legal relationships and legal situations existing prior to the date of the ruling. That is, does the invalidity of the act affect all legal relationships, or only a specific category and under which conditions? Pursuant to Article 264(2) TFEU the Court of Justice of the European Union can, in case it has declared an act – e.g. a directive – null and void, decide which of the effects of the particular act shall be considered as definitive.3 This provision applies by analogy also to preliminary rulings under Article 267 TFEU in which the Court has declared an act of an EU institution invalid.4
257. In principle, the invalidity of an instrument of Union law has retroactive effect. The Court of Justice can limit the temporal effect of invalidity only in exceptional cases in which overriding considerations of legal certainty justify the confinement of the retroactive effect of invalidity.5 Should the Court of Justice decide that a restriction of the retroactive effect of invalidity is justified, the next decision to be made by the Court is whether an exception to that restriction may be made in favour of the party that brought the action or in favour of any other party that took similar steps prior to the declaration of invalidity, or whether the restriction of retroactive effect constitutes an adequate remedy even for such parties.6