# C_2020162EN.01000201.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/2

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 6 February 2020 — UH v Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Ireland and Attorney General

(Case C-64/20)

(2020/C 162/02)

Language of the case: Irish

Referring court

High Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UH

Defendants: Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Ireland and Attorney General

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a national court have discretion to refuse relief in spite of its decision that national law has failed to give effect to a particular aspect of a directive of the European Union (EU) and, if the court does have that discretion, what are the appropriate factors that should be taken into account in relation to the discretion and/or is the national court entitled to take into account those same factors which it would take into account if it were dealing with a breach of national law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a national court have discretion to refuse relief in spite of its decision that national law has failed to give effect to a particular aspect of a directive of the European Union (EU) and, if the court does have that discretion, what are the appropriate factors that should be taken into account in relation to the discretion and/or is the national court entitled to take into account those same factors which it would take into account if it were dealing with a breach of national law?

| 2. | Would the principle of direct effect in EU law be undermined if the national court refused to grant relief in this case due to the entry into force of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 (the application of which is deferred until 28 January 2022), in spite of the fact that the national court decided that national law has failed to give effect to the duty in Articles 61(1), 58(4) and 59(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC (2), that duty being that the packaging and labelling of veterinary products must be in the official languages of the Member State, that is to say, in Irish as well as English, in Ireland? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Would the principle of direct effect in EU law be undermined if the national court refused to grant relief in this case due to the entry into force of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2019/6 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 (the application of which is deferred until 28 January 2022), in spite of the fact that the national court decided that national law has failed to give effect to the duty in Articles 61(1), 58(4) and 59(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC (2), that duty being that the packaging and labelling of veterinary products must be in the official languages of the Member State, that is to say, in Irish as well as English, in Ireland?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on veterinary medicinal products and repealing Directive 2001/82/EC (OJ 2019, L 4, p. 43).

(2)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 1).

---