Opinion of Advocate General Mischo delivered on 28 May 1991

1 Original language: French.

2 Judgment in Case C-221/88 ECSC v Banem [1990] ECR I-495, paragraph 22.

3 Judgment in Case 152/84 Marsball v Southampton and South-Wat Hampshire Health Authority [1986] ECR 723.

4 Judgment in Case 8/81 Becker v Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt [1982] ECR 53.

5 Judgment in Case 286/85 McDermott and Cotterv Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General [1987] ECR 1453.

6 Judgment in Joined Cases C-100/89 and C-101/89 Kaefer and Procacci [1990] ECR I-4647, paragraph 26.

7 Sec in particular the judgement in Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirstschaftskammer Saarland [19761 ECR 1989, paragraph 5, and Case 45/76 Cornel v Produklschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043, paragraphs 12 and 13.

8 See the judgment in Case C-213/89 Factoname I [1990] ECR I-2433, at paragraphs 20 and 21, and the judgement in Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthai [1978] ECR 629, paragraph 22.

9 See the judgment in Case 106/77 Simmenthal, cited above, paragraph 21.

10 See in particular the judgment in Case 240/87 Deville v Administration des Impôts [1988] ECR 3513, paragraph 11.

11 See in particular the judgment in Case 309/85 Barra v Belgium [1988] ECR 355.

12 According to Mr Russo, the principle of the obligation to make reparation is established in this case, while the rules for effecting reparation must continue to fall within the competence of the national court([1976] ECR 50, beginning of the right-hand column).

13 According to the Commission, national law must provide procedures for the protection of rights arising from Community rules and the principles of efficiency and of the uniform application of Community law require that this protection should be appropriate and effective, without prejudice to the neutral stance of Community law with regard to the procedure chosen ([1976] ECR 52, third paragraph of the left-hand column and top of the right-hand column).

14 See the judgment in Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595, for the plaintiffs in the main proceedings, the judgment in Case 101/78 Granaria v Hooļdproduktschap voor Akker- bouwprodukten [1979] ECR 623, for the Commission and the Netherlands Government; and the judgment of Case 158/80 Rewe v Hauptzollamt Kiel [1981] ECR 1805, for the United Kingdom.

15 See, to thai effect Simon, D. and Barav, A. Le Droit Communautaire et la Suspension Provisoire des Mesures Nationales — Les Enjeux de l'Affaire Factortame, Revue du marché commun, No 340, October 1990, page 591 at 596. See also Curtin, D. Directives: The Effectiveness of Judicial Protection of Individual Rights, Common Market Law Review, 27, 1990, 709 at 735.

16 That approach would in any event address the issues left open by the Court's silence in the Factortame I judgment as to the conditions under which the power held to exist in that case is to be exercised. See, in that regard, the abovementioned article of D. Simon and A. Barav, in particular at page 597.

17 See, most recently, the judgment in Case C-249/88 Commission v Belgium [1991] ECR I-1275, paragraph 41.

18 See also the judgment in Case 48/71 Commission v Italy [1972] ECR 527, paragraph 7. It should be observed that in that judgment the Court expressly noted that Italy had eliminated its default with effect from the beginning of the infringement (see paragraph 11 of the grounds of the judgment and point 1 of the operative part).

19 Judgment in Case 52/75 Commission v Italy [1976] ECR 277, paragraph 14.

20 See, in addition to the judgment in Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585, at 594, in particular the judgment in Case 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v Einfuhrund Vorratsstelle Getreide [1970] ECR 1125, paragraph 3: the law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law, cannot because of its very nature be overridden by rules of national law, however framed, without being deprived of its character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called in question. Therefore the validity of a Community measure or its effect within a Member Slate cannot be affected by allegations that it runs counter to either fundamental rights as formulated by the constitution of that State or the principles of a national constitutional structure.

21 According to R. Kovar, the liability of the State in its legislative capacity is a necessary consequence of the primacy of Community law. National legal systems must therefore be amended so as to provide full protection of the rights granted to Community nationals (see Voies de droit ouvertes aux individus devant les instances nationales en cas de violation des normes et decisions du droit communautaire, in Le recours dei individus devant les instances nationales en cas de violation du droit européen, Brussels, Larder, 1978, o 245 ai 274). The author applies the same considerations to liability in respect of the judiciary and considers that where the Court of Justice finds that a national judgment which has become definitive is contrary to Community law it must be possible for the harm which may have resulted to be made good (page 275).

22 Judgment in Case 30/72 Commission v Italy [1973] ECR 161, paragraph 11.

23 Sec, to that effect, Joliét, R. Le Droit Institutionnet des Communautés Européennes — Le Contentieux, Liège, 1981, p. 259.

24 Le Regime de la Responsabilité Extraconlraciuelle du fail d'Actes Juridiques dans la Communauté Européenne, by F. Schockweilcr, with the assistance of G. Wivenes and J. M. Godan, Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen, January-March 1990, p. 27 at p. 54 et seq.

25 See, in relation to a legislative context characterized by a wide margin of discretion, in particular the judgment in Case 20/88 Roquette v Commission [1989] ECR 1553, paragraph 23.

26 In Community law it is sufficient for a simple interest to be affected, and not the rights of the person harmed. See, in addition to the VIoebergbs and Kampfjmeyer judgments cited by the Commission (see page 17 of the Report for the Hearing), R. Joliét, Le Droit Institutionnel äes Communautés Européennes — Le Contentieux, Liege, 1981, p. 268, and M. Waelbroeck in J. Mégret, Le Droit de la Communauté Economique Européenne, Volume 10 part 1 Brussels, 1983, p. 292.

27 See, to that effect, as regards actions for the repayment of national charges levied contrary to Community law, the judgments in Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirtschaftskammer Saarland [1976] ECR 1989, paragraph 5, and Case 45/76 Comet v Produktscbap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043, paragraph 14.

28 As Judge Schocksveiler correctly noted ¡n a recent article (Le Dommage causé par suite d'une Violation du Droit Communautaire par l'Autorité Publique et sa Réparation en Droit Luxembourgeois, in Pasicrme luxemkourgeoue, 1990, No 2, p. 35 at p. 40),that last condition might lead the Member States, where appropriate, to amend or adapt their rules governing the liability of public authorities.

29 Bulletin of the European Communites, Supplement 9/75 p. 19.

30 Sec, most recently, the judgment in Case C-262/88 Barber [1990] ECR I-1889 at I-1955.