This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/095/15
Case C-432/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern (Principle of judicial protection — National legislation not providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compatibility of a national provision with Community law — Procedural autonomy — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Interim protection)
Case C-432/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern (Principle of judicial protection — National legislation not providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compatibility of a national provision with Community law — Procedural autonomy — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Interim protection)
Case C-432/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern (Principle of judicial protection — National legislation not providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compatibility of a national provision with Community law — Procedural autonomy — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Interim protection)
OJ C 95, 28.4.2007, p. 9–10
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.4.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 95/9 |
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern
(Case C-432/05) (1)
(Principle of judicial protection - National legislation not providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compatibility of a national provision with Community law - Procedural autonomy - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Interim protection)
(2007/C 95/15)
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Högsta domstolen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd
Defendant: Justitiekanslern
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National legislation not providing for an action for a declaration that a legislative provision conflicts with higher-ranking legal rules — Right of individuals to effective judicial protection of rights which they derive from the Community legal order
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual's rights under Community law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require the national legal order of a Member State to provide for a free-standing action for an examination of whether national provisions are compatible with Article 49 EC, provided that other effective legal remedies, which are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions, make it possible for such a question of compatibility to be determined as a preliminary issue, which is a task that falls to the national court. |
|
2. |
The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual's rights under Community law must be interpreted as requiring it to be possible in the legal order of a Member State for interim relief to be granted until the competent court has given a ruling on whether national provisions are compatible with Community 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. |
|
3. |
The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual's rights under Community law must be interpreted as meaning that, where the compatibility of national provisions with Community law is being challenged, the grant of any interim relief to suspend the application of such provisions until the competent court has given a ruling on whether those provisions are compatible with Community law is governed by the criteria laid down by the national law applicable before that court, provided that those criteria are no less favourable than those applying to similar domestic actions and do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the interim judicial protection of those rights. |