Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2015:269
Date: 2015-04-23
Language of the case: Romanian
Subject matter: Taxation;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Social Policy;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 October 2015 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred — Assessment by the national court — Presumption of relevance of the questions referred (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Questions bearing no relation to the purpose of the dispute in the main proceedings — None — Admissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) 3. EU law — Direct effect — Individual rights — Safeguarding by the national courts — Legal action — Principle of procedural autonomy — Observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness 4. Member States — Obligations — Res judicata — Requirement for a national court to disapply domestic rules of procedure in order to reexamine a decision of a court or tribunal having the authority of res judicata — None — Exception — Enshrining of the possibility for revision of decisions of a court or tribunal having the authority of res judicata in the light of decisions made in certain areas (Art. 4(3) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU) 5. Member States — Obligations — Res judicata — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Requirement to revise a decision of a court or tribunal in civil proceedings having the authority of res judicata found to be incompatible with a later interpretation of EU law — None — Possibility for such revision in respect of final decisions of a court or tribunal in administrative proceedings — No effect (Art. 4(3) TEU; Art. 267 TFEU) 6. EU law — Rights conferred on individuals — Infringement by a Member State — Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 12, 13, 19) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 14, 19, 21, 22) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 26, 27) 4. The importance of the principle of res judicata is reflected both in the legal order of the European Union and in national legal systems. In order to ensure both stability of the law and legal relations and the sound administration of justice, it is important that decisions of courts or tribunals which have become definitive after all rights of appeal have been exhausted or after expiry of the time-limits provided for in that connection can no longer be called into question. Therefore, EU law does not require a national court to disapply domestic rules of procedure conferring finality on a judgment, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy a domestic situation which is incompatible with EU law. Nevertheless, if the applicable domestic rules of procedure provide the possibility, under certain conditions, for a national court to go back on a decision having the authority of res judicata in order to render the situation compatible with national law, that possibility must prevail if those conditions are met, in accordance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, so that the situation at issue is brought back into line with EU law. (see paras 28-30) 5. EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding a situation where there is no possibility for a national court to revise a final decision of a court or tribunal made in the course of civil proceedings when that decision is found to be incompatible with an interpretation of EU law upheld by the Court of Justice after the date on which that decision became final, even though such a possibility does exist as regards final decisions of a court or tribunal incompatible with EU law made in the course of administrative proceedings. Concerning the principle of equivalence, that principle requires equal treatment of claims based on a breach of national law and of similar claims based on a breach of EU law, not equivalence of national procedural rules applicable to different types of proceedings such as civil proceedings on the one hand and administrative proceedings on the other. Furthermore, that principle is not relevant to a situation which concerns two types of actions, both of which are based on a breach of EU law. Concerning the principle of effectiveness, that principle must be analysed by reference to the role of the rules concerned in the proceedings as a whole, the way in which the proceedings are conducted and the special features of those rules, before the various national bodies. For those purposes, account must be taken, where appropriate, of the principles which form the basis of the national judicial system concerned, such as protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of proceedings. EU law does not require a judicial body automatically to go back on a judgment having the authority of res judicata in order to take into account the interpretation of a relevant provision of EU law adopted by the Court after delivery of that judgment. (see paras 34, 36-39, 41, operative part) 6. See the text of the decision. (see para. 40)