Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2007:245
Date: 2007-04-24
Language of the case: German
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Member States – Obligations – Obligation of cooperation – Obligation on an administrative body to review a final administrative decision in order to take account of the interpretation of the relevant provision given in the meantime by the Court (Art. 10 EC) 2. Member States – Obligations – Obligation of cooperation – Obligation on an administrative body to review a final administrative decision in order to take account of the interpretation of the relevant provision given in the meantime by the Court (Art. 10 EC) 1. In the context of a procedure before an administrative body for review of an administrative decision that became final by virtue of a judgment, delivered by a court of final instance, which, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, was based on a misinterpretation of Community law, Community law does not require the claimant to have relied on Community law in the legal action under domestic law which he brought against the administrative decision. While Community law does not require that administrative bodies be placed under an obligation, in principle, to reopen an administrative decision which has become final, specific circumstances may nevertheless be capable, by virtue of the principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC, of requiring such a body to review an administrative decision that has become final in order to take account of the interpretation of a relevant provision of Community law given subsequently by the Court. The condition – which is among those capable of providing the basis for such an obligation of review – that the judgment of the court of final instance by virtue of which the contested administrative decision became final was, in the light of a subsequent decision of the Court, based on a misinterpretation of Community law which was adopted without a question being referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling cannot be interpreted as requiring the parties to have raised before the national court the point of Community law in question. It is sufficient in that regard if either the point of Community law the interpretation of which proved to be incorrect in light of a subsequent judgment of the Court was considered by the national court ruling at final instance or it could have been raised by the latter of its own motion. While Community law does not require national courts to raise of their own motion a plea alleging infringement of Community provisions where examination of that plea would oblige them to go beyond the ambit of the dispute as defined by the parties, they are obliged to raise of their own motion points of law based on binding Community rules where, under national law, they must or may do so in relation to a binding rule of national law. (see paras 37-39, 44-46, operative part 1) 2. Community law does not impose any limit in time for making an application for review of an administrative decision that has become final. The Member States nevertheless remain free to set reasonable time-limits for seeking remedies, in a manner consistent with the Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence. (see para. 60, operative part 2)