NECESSARY THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF THAT RULE AS IT MUST BE OR OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED FROM THE TIME OF ITS COMING INTO FORCE . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE RULE AS THUS INTERPRETED MAY, AND MUST, BE APPLIED BY THE COURTS EVEN TO LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS ARISING AND ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE JUDGMENT RULING ON THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, PROVIDED THAT IN OTHER RESPECTS THE CONDITIONS ENABLING AN ACTION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THAT RULE TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION ARE SATISFIED .
12 AS THE COURT RECOGNIZED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 8 APRIL 1976 IN CASE 43/75 DEFRENNE V SABENA (( 1976 )) ECR 455, IT IS ONLY EXCEPTIONALLY THAT THE COURT MAY, IN APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY INHERENT IN THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER AND IN TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE SERIOUS EFFECTS WHICH ITS JUDGMENT MIGHT HAVE, AS REGARDS THE PAST, ON LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH, BE MOVED TO RESTRICT FOR ANY PERSON CONCERNED THE OPPORTUNITY OF RELYING UPON THE PROVISION AS THUS INTERPRETED WITH A VIEW TO CALLING IN QUESTION THOSE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS .
13 HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT SUCH A RESTRICTION MAY BE ALLOWED ONLY IN THE JUDGMENT RULING UPON THE INTERPRETATION SOUGHT . THE FUNDAMENTAL NEED FOR A GENERAL AND UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW IMPLIES THAT IT IS FOR THE COURT OF JUSTICE ALONE TO DECIDE UPON THE TEMPORAL RESTRICTIONS TO BE PLACED ON THE INTERPRETATION WHICH IT LAYS DOWN .
14 THE COURT IS CALLED ON BY THE ORDER FOR REFERENCE TO RULE, IN THIS CONNECTION, AS TO WHETHER THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE EEC TREATY WHICH IT LAID DOWN IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 FEBRUARY 1985 IN CASE 293/83 ALSO APPLIES TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THAT DATE . AS THE COURT DID NOT LIMIT THE SCOPE OF ITS JUDGMENT IN CASE 293/83 RATIONE TEMPORIS, SUCH A RESTRICTION CANNOT BE MADE IN THIS JUDGMENT .
15 THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE EEC TREATY LAID DOWN BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 FEBRUARY 1985 IN CASE 293/83 IS NOT LIMITED IN SCOPE TO APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO VOCATIONAL TRAINING COURSES MADE AFTER THE DATE OF THAT JUDGMENT BUT ALSO APPLIES TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THAT DATE .
THE SECOND QUESTION
16 IN ITS SECOND QUESTION THE NATIONAL COURT ASKS ESSENTIALLY WHETHER COMMUNITY LAW PRECLUDES THE APPLICATION TO STUDENTS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES WHO HAVE UNDULY PAID A SUPPLEMENTARY ENROLMENT FEE OF A NATIONAL LAW DEPRIVING THEM OF THE RIGHT TO REPAYMENT OF THAT FEE IF THEY DID NOT BRING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FOR REPAYMENT BEFORE THE DELIVERY OF THE JUDGMENT OF 13 FEBRUARY 1985 IN CASE 293/83 .
17 IT MUST BE STATED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAYMENT OF AMOUNTS CHARGED BY A MEMBER STATE IN BREACH OF THE RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW IS THE CONSEQUENCE AND COMPLEMENT OF THE RIGHTS CONFERRED