Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2009:437
Date: 2009-07-09
Language of the case: Spanish
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Summary of the Judgment 1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits (Art. 234 EC) 2. European Union law – Rights conferred on individuals – Infringement by a Member State – Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals 1. Although it is not the task of the Court, in preliminary ruling proceedings, to rule upon the compatibility of provisions of national law with the legal rules of the European Union, it has jurisdiction to give the national court full guidance on the interpretation of European Union law in order to enable it to determine the issue of compatibility for the purposes of the case before it. To that end, the origin – whether legislative, regulatory or judicial – of the rules of national law whose compatibility with European Union law the national court must assess, in the light of the guidance on interpretation provided by the Court, has no effect whatsoever on the latter’s jurisdiction to rule on the reference for a preliminary ruling. (see paras 23-24) 2. European Union law precludes the application of a rule of a Member State under which an action for damages against the State, alleging a breach of that law by national legislation which has been established by a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities given pursuant to Article 226 EC, can succeed only if the applicant has previously exhausted all domestic remedies for challenging the validity of a harmful administrative measure adopted on the basis of that legislation, when such a rule is not applicable to an action for damages against the State alleging breach of the Constitution by national legislation which has been established by the competent court. The principle of equivalence requires that all the rules applicable to actions apply without distinction to actions alleging infringement of European Union law and to similar actions alleging infringement of national law. In the light of their purpose and their essential characteristics, the two actions for damages concerned may be regarded as similar since, first, they have exactly the same purpose, namely compensation for the loss suffered by the person harmed as a result of an act or an omission of the State and, second, the only difference between the two actions concerned is the fact that the breaches of law on which they are based are established, in respect of one, by the Court in a judgment given pursuant to Article 226 EC and, in respect of the other, by a judgment of the competent national court. That fact, in the absence of other factors demonstrating that there are further differences between those actions, cannot suffice to establish a distinction between those two actions in the light of the principle of equivalence. Accordingly, the principle of equivalence precludes the application of such a rule. (see paras 33, 36, 43-46, 48 and operative part)