CELEX: C2006/036/47
Language: en
Date: 2006-02-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-432/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of  24 November 2005  in Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern

11.2.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 36/23
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 24 November 2005 in Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern
   (Case C-432/05)
   (2006/C 36/47)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen of 24 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd and Justitiekanslern on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               Is the requirement of Community law that national procedural rules must provide effective protection of an individual's rights under Community law to be interpreted as meaning that an action for a declaration that certain national substantive provisions conflict with Article 49 of the EC Treaty must be permitted to be brought in a case where the compatibility of the substantive provisions with that article may otherwise be examined only as a preliminary issue in, for example, an action for damages, proceedings concerning infringement of the national substantive provisions or judicial review proceedings?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does the requirement of effective legal protection under Community law mean that the national legal order must provide interim protection, through which national rules which prevent the exercise of an alleged right based on Community law may be disapplied in relation to an individual so that he is able to exercise that right until the question of the existence of the right has been finally settled by a national court?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:
               Does it follow from Community law that, where the compatibility of national provisions with Community law is being challenged, in its substantive examination of an application for interim protection of rights under Community law a national court must apply national provisions governing the conditions for interim protection, or in such a situation must the national court apply Community law criteria for interim protection?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 3 is that Community law criteria must be applied, what are those criteria?