INFLUX OF STUDENTS WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS . SUCH A DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLE IS NOT INTENDED TO ALLOW, AND CANNOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING, A MEMBER STATE TO ADOPT MEASURES RESULTING IN DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 7 OF THE EEC TREATY .
24 WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED BY THE NATIONAL COURT MUST THEREFORE BE THAT UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN VETERINARY MEDICINE FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM "VOCATIONAL TRAINING", AND CONSEQUENTLY A SUPPLEMENTARY ENROLMENT FEE CHARGED TO STUDENTS WHO ARE NATIONALS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES AND WISH TO ENROL FOR SUCH STUDIES CONSTITUTES DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 7 OF THE EEC TREATY .
THE EFFECT RATIONE TEMPORIS OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM "VOCATIONAL TRAINING"
25 THE APPLICANTS AND THE COMMISSION EMPHASIZE THAT AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE INTERPRETATIVE JUDGMENTS DELIVERED IN REPLY TO A REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING HAVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT . THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE EEC TREATY GIVEN IN THE JUDGMENT OF 13 FEBRUARY 1985, REFERRED TO ABOVE, MUST BE OBSERVED BY ALL NATIONAL COURTS EVEN WITH REGARD TO APPLICATIONS FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING COURSES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1 SEPTEMBER 1976 TO 31 DECEMBER 1984 . A MEMBER STATE CANNOT ADOPT LEGISLATION IMPOSING A TEMPORAL RESTRICTION ON THE EFFECT OF SUCH A JUDGMENT WHERE THE COURT DID NOT LAY DOWN SUCH A RESTRICTION IN ITS JUDGMENT .
26 THE DEFENDANTS, ON THE OTHER HAND, EMPHASIZE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF 13 FEBRUARY 1985 CONSTITUTES A NEW DEVELOPMENT IN COMMUNITY LAW AND WOULD HAVE SERIOUS REPERCUSSIONS IF IT WERE TO HAVE EFFECT FROM 1 SEPTEMBER 1976 ONWARDS . THE SITUATION, THEY SAY, IS THUS COMPARABLE TO THAT IN CASE 43/75 ( JUDGMENT OF 8 APRIL 1976 DEFRENNE V SABENA (( 1976 )) ECR 455 ).
27 AS THE COURT HAS HELD ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE JUDGMENT OF 27 MARCH 1980 IN CASE 61/79 AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO V DENKAVIT ITALIANA (( 1980 )) ECR 1205 ), THE INTERPRETATION WHICH, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON IT BY ARTICLE 177, THE COURT GIVES TO A RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW CLARIFIES AND DEFINES WHERE 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 .
28 AS THE COURT RECOGNIZED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 8 APRIL 1976, REFERRED TO ABOVE, IT IS ONLY EXCEPTIONALLY THAT IT MAY, IN APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY INHERENT IN THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER, BE MOVED TO RESTRICT FOR ANY PERSON CONCERNED THE OPPORTUNITY OF