XC and Others v Generalprokuratur.
Date: 2018-10-24
14


However, where, as in the main proceedings, the authorities of a Member State accept a request for judicial assistance based on the CISA, which forms an integral part of EU law by virtue of Protocol No 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 290), they implement EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter. It has, moreover, been held that Article 54 of the CISA must be interpreted in the light of Article 50 of the Charter, Article 54 serving to ensure respect for the essence of Article 50 (see, to that effect, judgments of 27 May 2014, Spasic, C‑129/14 PPU, EU:C:2014:586, paragraph 59; of 5 June 2014, M, C‑398/12, EU:C:2014:1057, paragraph 35; and of 29 June 2016, Kossowski, C‑486/14, EU:C:2016:483, paragraph 31). Therefore, the factual and legal situation giving rise to the case in the main proceedings falls within the scope of EU law.
16


According to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought is unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its object, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, in particular, judgment of 27 June 2018, Altiner and Ravn, C‑230/17, EU:C:2018:497, paragraph 22).
21


In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in the absence of EU legislation in this area, the rules implementing the principle of res judicata are a matter for the national legal order, in accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, but must be consistent with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (judgment of 10 July 2014, Impresa Pizzarotti, C‑213/13, EU:C:2014:2067, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).
22


In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU, the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding an individual’s rights under EU law must be no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness) (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 December 1976, Rewe-Zentralfinanz and Rewe-Zentral, 33/76, EU:C:1976:188, paragraph 5; of 14 December 1995, Peterbroeck, C‑312/93, EU:C:1995:437, paragraph 12; of 15 April 2008, Impact, C‑268/06, EU:C:2008:223, paragraph 46; and of 27 June 2013, Agrokonsulting-04, C‑93/12, EU:C:2013:432, paragraph 36).
23


The requirements stemming from those principles apply both to the designation of the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction to hear and determine actions based on EU law and to the definition of the procedural rules governing such actions (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 April 2008, Impact, C‑268/06, EU:C:2008:223, paragraph 47, and of 27 June 2013, Agrokonsulting-04, C‑93/12, EU:C:2013:432, paragraph 37).
24


The observance of those requirements must be analysed by reference to the role of the rules concerned in the procedure viewed as a whole, to the conduct of that procedure and to the special features of those rules before the various national courts (judgment of 27 June 2013, Agrokonsulting-04, C‑93/12, EU:C:2013:432, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
27


It must, therefore, be ascertained whether that action may be regarded as similar to an action brought to safeguard EU law, in particular the fundamental rights enshrined by that law, taking into consideration the purpose, cause of action and essential characteristics of those actions (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 June 2013, Agrokonsulting-04, C‑93/12, EU:C:2013:432, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).
36


In that regard, it should be recalled, as the Court has noted many times, that EU law is characterised by the fact that it stems from an independent source of law, the Treaties, by its primacy over the laws of the Member States (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 July 1964, Costa, 6/64, EU:C:1964:66, and of 17 December 1970, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 11/70, EU:C:1970:114, paragraph 3; Opinion1/91 (EEA Agreement — I), of 14 December 1991, EU:C:1991:490, paragraph 21, and 1/09, of 8 March 2011, EU:C:2011:123, paragraph 65, and judgment of 26 February 2013, Melloni, C‑399/11, EU:C:2013:107, paragraph 59) and by the direct effect of a whole series of provisions which are applicable to their nationals and to the Member States themselves (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 February 1963, van Gend & Loos, 26/62, EU:C:1963:1, p. 23; Opinion 1/09, of 8 March 2011, EU:C:2011:123, paragraph 65 and Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraph 166 and the case-law cited).
37


Also at the heart of that legal structure are the fundamental rights recognised by the Charter (which, under Article 6(1) TEU, has the same legal value as the Treaties), respect for those rights being a condition of the lawfulness of EU acts, so that measures that are incompatible with those rights are not acceptable in the European Union (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 June 1991, ERT, C‑260/89, EU:C:1991:254, paragraph 41; of 29 May 1997, Kremzow, C‑299/95, EU:C:1997:254, paragraph 14; of 12 June 2003, Schmidberger, C‑112/00, EU:C:2003:333, paragraph 73; and of 3 September 2008, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, C‑402/05 P and C‑415/05 P, EU:C:2008:461, paragraphs 283 and 284 and Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR), of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraph 169).
38


The Court has also held, with regard to the principle of ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter, which is at issue in the main proceedings, that that provision has direct effect (judgment of 20 March 2018, Garlsson Real Estate and Others, C‑537/16, EU:C:2018:193, paragraph 68).
41


The judicial system as thus conceived has as its keystone the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU, which, by setting up a dialogue between one court and another, specifically between the Court of Justice and the courts and tribunals of the Member States, has the objective of securing uniform interpretation of EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 February 1963, van Gend & Loos, 26/62, EU:C:1963:1, p. 23), thereby serving to ensure its consistency, its full effect and its autonomy as well as, ultimately, the particular nature of the law established by the Treaties (Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the Union to the ECHR), of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraph 176).
42


In accordance with settled case-law, Article 267 TFEU gives national courts the widest discretion in referring matters to the Court if they consider that a case pending before them raises questions involving the interpretation of provisions of EU law, or consideration of their validity, which are necessary for the resolution of the case before them. National courts are, moreover, free to exercise that discretion at whatever stage of the proceedings they consider appropriate (judgment of 5 July 2016, Ognyanov, C‑614/14, EU:C:2016:514, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).
43


In addition, it must be borne in mind that, under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, when there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decision of a court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice, where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before it (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 September 2015, Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others, C‑160/14, EU:C:2015:565, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
44


Lastly, according to the settled case-law of the Court, the national courts called upon, within the exercise of their jurisdiction, to apply provisions of EU law, are under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of their own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national law, and it is not necessary for that court to request or to await the prior setting aside of that provision of national law by legislative or other constitutional means (see, to that effect, judgments of 9 March 1978, Simmenthal, 106/77, EU:C:1978:49, paragraphs 21 and 24, and of 6 March 2018, SEGRO and Horváth, C‑52/16 and C‑113/16, EU:C:2018:157, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).
49


As regards the principle of effectiveness, it should be recalled that, according to settled case-law, every case in which the question arises as to whether a national procedural provision makes the application of EU law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its conduct and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national bodies. In that context, it is necessary, inter alia, to take into consideration, where relevant, the protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of the procedure (judgment of 22 February 2018, INEOS Köln, C‑572/16, EU:C:2018:100, paragraph 44).
51


In that regard, it must be observed that the TFEU was not intended to require the Member States to introduce in proceedings before their national courts, with a view to ensuring the protection of the rights that individuals derive from EU law, remedies other than those laid down by national law (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 March 2007, Unibet, C‑432/05, EU:C:2007:163, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
52


Furthermore, attention should be drawn to the importance, both in the legal order of the European Union and in national legal systems, of the principle of res judicata. In order to ensure both stability of the law and legal relations and the sound administration of justice, it is important that judicial decisions which have become definitive after all rights of appeal have been exhausted or after expiry of the time limits provided for in that connection can no longer be called into question (judgments of 16 March 2006, Kapferer, C‑234/04, EU:C:2006:178, paragraph 20; of 29 June 2010, Commission v Luxembourg, C‑526/08, EU:C:2010:379, paragraph 26; of 29 March 2011, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta v Commission, C‑352/09 P, EU:C:2011:191, paragraph 123; and of 10 July 2014, Impresa Pizzarotti, C‑213/13, EU:C:2014:2067, paragraph 58).
53


Therefore, EU law does not require a national court to disapply domestic rules of procedure conferring finality on a judgment, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy a domestic situation which is incompatible with EU law (judgments of 10 July 2014, Impresa Pizzarotti, C‑213/13, EU:C:2014:2067, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited, and of 6 October 2015, Târşia, C‑69/14, EU:C:2015:662, paragraph 29).
54


Accordingly, EU law does not require a judicial body automatically to go back on a judgment having the authority of res judicata in order to take into account the interpretation of a relevant provision of EU law adopted by the Court after delivery of that judgment (see, to that effect, judgments of 10 July 2014, Impresa Pizzarotti, C‑213/13, EU:C:2014:2067, paragraph 60, and of 6 October 2015, Târşia, C‑69/14, EU:C:2015:662, paragraph 38).
58


Moreover, as the Advocate General observed in point 56 of his Opinion, the principle of res judicata does not preclude recognition of the principle of State liability for the decision of a court adjudicating at last instance (judgment of 30 September 2003, Köbler, C‑224/01, EU:C:2003:513, paragraph 40). Given, inter alia, that an infringement, by such a decision, of rights deriving from EU law cannot normally be corrected thereafter, individuals cannot be deprived of the possibility of holding the State liable in order to obtain legal protection of their rights (judgments of 30 September 2003, Köbler, C‑224/01, EU:C:2003:513, paragraph 34, and of 6 October 2015, Târşia, C‑69/14, EU:C:2015:662, paragraph 40).