In that regard, it should be noted that that obligation, which was not provided for initially by Directive 75/363, was introduced by Directive 82/76, entered into force on 29 January 1982 and the Member States, in accordance with Article 16 thereof, were required to comply with it by 31 December 1982 at the latest.

Article 2(1)(c), Article 3(1) and (2) and the Annex to Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, as amended by Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982, must be interpreted as meaning that any period of full-time or part-time specialist medical training begun in 1982 and continued up to 1990 must be subject to appropriate remuneration, within the meaning of that Annex, provided that that training concerns a medical speciality common to all the Member States or to two or more of them and is referred to in Articles 5 or 7 of Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services.

Article 2(1)(c), Article 3(1) and (2) and the Annex to Directive 75/363, as amended by Directive 82/76, must be interpreted as meaning that the existence of the obligation, for a Member State, to provide appropriate remuneration, within the meaning of that Annex, for any period of full-time or part-time specialist medical training begun in 1982 and continued up to 1990, does not depend on the adoption, by that Member State, of measures transposing Directive 82/76. The national court is required, when it applies provisions of national law adopted either before or after a directive, to interpret them as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of those directives.

Where, owing to the absence of national measures transposing Directive 82/76, the result prescribed by that directive cannot be achieved by interpretation, by taking account of the entirety of domestic law and applying the methods of interpretation recognised by it, EU law requires the Member State concerned to make good damage caused to individuals through failure to transpose that directive. It is for the referring court to determine whether all the conditions laid down in that regard by the case-law of the Court of Justice are met for the Member State to have incurred liability under EU law.

In that regard, retroactive application in full of the measures implementing Directive 82/76 will enable the harmful consequences of its belated transposition to be remedied, provided that the directive was properly transposed. However, it is for the national court to ensure that reparation of the loss or damage sustained by the beneficiaries is adequate. Retroactive and proper application in full of the measures implementing Directive 82/76 will suffice for that purpose unless the beneficiaries establish the existence of complementary loss sustained on account of the fact that they were unable to benefit at the appropriate time from the financial advantages guaranteed by that directive with the result that such loss must also be made good (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 February 1999, Carbonari and Others, C‑131/97, EU:C:1999:98, paragraph 53, and of 3 October 2000, Gozza and Others, C‑371/97, EU:C:2000:526, paragraph 39).

(see paras 50, 51, operative part 2)