Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1997:34
Date: 1997-01-23
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment
Community law — Rights conferred on individuals — Breach, by a Member State, of the obliga­
tion to transpose a directive — Obligation to make good loss or damage caused to individuals —
Requirements for reparation — Application of national law — Limitation period — Whether
permissible — Conditions — Compliance with the principle of the effectiveness of Community
law — Compliance with the principle of the equivalence of the conditions of reparation with
those of similar claims in national law
(Council Directive 80/987)
I - 4025
SUMMARY — CASE C-261/95
Community law, as it stands at present, does
not preclude a Member State from requiring
any action for reparation of the loss or dam­
age sustained as a result of the belated trans­
position of Directive 80/987, on the approxi­
mation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the protection of employees in the
event of the insolvency of their employer, to
be brought within a limitation period of one
year from the date of its transposition into
national law, provided that that procedural
requirement is no less favourable than proce­
dural requirements in respect of similar
actions of a domestic nature.
The setting of reasonable limitation periods
for bringing proceedings, after which claims
are forfeited, inasmuch as it constitutes an
application of the fundamental principle of
legal certainty, in principle satisfies the
requirement that the conditions, in particular
time-limits, laid down by national law for
reparation of loss or damage caused to indi­
viduals by breaches of Community law for
which a State can be held responsible must
not be so framed as to make it virtually
impossible or excessively difficult to obtain
reparation (principle of effectiveness); more­
over, the limitation period in question, which
not only enables the beneficiaries to ascertain
the full extent of their rights but also speci­
fies the conditions under which loss or dam­
age sustained as a result of the belated trans­
position will be made good, cannot be
regarded as making it excessively difficult or,
a fortiori, virtually impossible to lodge a
claim for reparation.
It is for the national courts to ascertain
whether the time-limit in question also com­
plies with the principle that the conditions
laid down by their national law as regards
reparation of the loss or damage caused to
individuals by breaches of Community law
for which a Member State can be held
responsible must not be less favourable than
those relating to similar domestic claims
(principle of equivalence). Those courts may
properly take into account the fact that
applications made in connection with the
implementation of the directive and those
made under the compensation scheme laid
down by it differ as to their objective, and
there is no need to undertake a comparison
of the procedural rules governing them. Fur­
thermore, if the ordinary Italian system of
non-contractual liability were to prove inca­
pable of serving as a basis for an action
against public authorities for unlawful con­
duct for which they can be held responsible
in the exercise of their powers and the
national court were unable to undertake any
other relevant comparison between the time-
limit at issue and the conditions relating to
similar claims of a domestic nature, the con­
clusion would have to be drawn that neither
the principle of equivalence nor the principle
of the effectiveness of Community law pre­
cluded the limitation period in question.
I - 4026