Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2018:223
Date: 2018-04-10
Language of the case: English;French
Subject matter: Approximation of laws;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Ireland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 7 August 2018 1. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States — Need to ensure that directives are effective — Obligations of national courts — Obligation of conforming interpretation — Scope — Interpretation of national law contra legem — Precluded (Art. 288, third para., TFEU) 2. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States — Need to ensure that directives are effective — Obligations of national courts — Limits — Dispute between private persons — Obligation to disapply national legislation and a contractual clause contrary to a directive — None (Art. 288, third para., TFEU) 1. See the text of the judgment. (see paras 37-41) 2. EU law, in particular Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing a dispute between private persons, which finds that it is unable to interpret the provisions of its national law that are contrary to a provision of a directive that satisfies all the conditions required for it to produce direct effect in a manner that is compatible with that provision, is not obliged, solely on the basis of EU law, to disapply those provisions of national law and a clause to be found, as a consequence of those provisions of national law, in an insurance contract. In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a party adversely affected by the incompatibility of national law with EU law or a person subrogated to the rights of that party could however rely on the case-law arising from the judgment of 19 November 1991, Francovich and Others (C‑6/90 and C‑9/90, EU:C:1991:428), in order to obtain from the Member State, if justified, compensation for any loss sustained. The Court has expressly held that a directive cannot be relied on in a dispute between individuals for the purpose of setting aside legislation of a Member State that is contrary to that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 February 2014, OSA, C‑351/12, EU:C:2014:110, paragraph 48). A national court is obliged to set aside a provision of national law that is contrary to a directive only where that directive is relied on against a Member State, the organs of its administration, such as decentralised authorities, or organisations or bodies which are subject to the authority or control of the State or which have been required by a Member State to perform a task in the public interest and, for that purpose, possess special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals (see, to that effect, judgments of 24 January 2012, Dominguez, C‑282/10, EU:C:2012:33, paragraphs 40 and 41; of 25 June 2015, Indėlių ir investicijų draudimas and Nemaniūnas, C‑671/13, EU:C:2015:418, paragraphs 59 and 60; and of 10 October 2017, Farrell, C‑413/15, EU:C:2017:745, paragraphs 32 to 42). (see paras 44, 45, 57, operative part)