Unibet (London) Ltd and Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern.
Date: 2007-03-13
33. The question whether Unibet’s action is admissible before the Swedish courts, which is the subject of the first question referred by the Högsta domstolen, is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the reference for a preliminary ruling is admissible.
37. It is to be noted at the outset that, according to settled case-law, the principle of effective judicial protection is a general principle of Community law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, which has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Case 222/84 Johnston  [1986] ECR 1651, paragraphs 18 and 19; Case 222/86 Heylens and Others [1987] ECR 4097, paragraph 14; Case C-424/99 Commission v Austria [2001] ECR I-9285, paragraph 45; Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council  [2002] ECR I-6677, paragraph 39; and Case C-467/01 Eribrand  [2003] ECR I-6471, paragraph 61) and which has also been reaffirmed by Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, proclaimed on 7 December 2000 in Nice (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1).
38. Under the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 10 EC, it is for the Member States to ensure judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law (see, to that effect, Case 33/76 Rewe , [1976] ECR 1989, paragraph 5; Case 45/76 Comet  [1976] ECR 2043, paragraph 12; Case 106/77 Simmenthal  [1978] ECR 629, paragraphs 21 and 22; Case C-213/89 Factortame and Others [1990] ECR I-2433, paragraph 19; and Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck  [1995] ECR I-4599, paragraph 12).
39. It is also to be noted that, in the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law (see, inter alia, Rewe , paragraph 5; Comet , paragraph 13; Peterbroeck , paragraph 12; Case C‑453/99 Courage and Crehan [2001] ECR I-6297, paragraph 29; and Case C-13/01 Safalero [2003] ECR I-8679, paragraph 49).
40. Although the EC Treaty has made it possible in a number of instances for private persons to bring a direct action, where appropriate, before the Community Court, it was not intended to create new remedies in the national courts to ensure the observance of Community law other than those already laid down by national law (Case 158/80 Rewe  [1981] ECR 1805, paragraph 44).
41. It would be otherwise only if it were apparent from the overall scheme of the national legal system in question that no legal remedy existed which made it possible to ensure, even indirectly, respect for an individual’s rights under Community law (see, to that effect, Case 33/76 Rewe , paragraph 5; Comet , paragraph 16; and Factortame , paragraphs 19 to 23).
42. Thus, while it is, in principle, for national law to determine an individual’s standing and legal interest in bringing proceedings, Community law nevertheless requires that the national legislation does not undermine the right to effective judicial protection (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-87/90 to C-89/90 Verholen and Others  [1991] ECR I‑3757, paragraph 24, and Safalero , paragraph 50). It is for the Member States to establish a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for that right ( Unión de Pequeños Agricultores  v Council , paragraph 41).
43. In that regard, the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding an individual’s rights under Community law must be no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see, inter alia, Case 33/76 Rewe , paragraph 5; Comet , paragraphs 13 to 16; Peterbroeck , paragraph 12; Courage and Crehan , paragraph 29; Eribrand , paragraph 62; and Safalero , paragraph 49).
44. Moreover, it is for the national courts to interpret the procedural rules governing actions brought before them, such as the requirement for there to be a specific legal relationship between the applicant and the State, in such a way as to enable those rules, wherever possible, to be implemented in such a manner as to contribute to the attainment of the objective, referred to at paragraph 37 above, of ensuring effective judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law.
54. In that regard, each case which raises the question whether a national procedural provision renders the application of Community law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national instances ( Peterbroeck , paragraph 14).
61. It is to be noted that such judicial review proceedings, which would enable Unibet to obtain a judicial decision that those provisions are incompatible with Community law, constitute a legal remedy securing effective judicial protection of its rights under Community law (see, to that effect, Heylens , paragraph 14, and Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou [1991] ECR I-2357, paragraph 22).
64. In any event, it is clear from paragraphs 56 to 61 above that Unibet must be regarded as having available to it legal remedies which ensure effective judicial protection of its rights under Community law. If, on the contrary, as mentioned at paragraph 62 above, it was forced to be subject to administrative or criminal proceedings and to any penalties that may result as the sole form of legal remedy for disputing the compatibility of the national provision at issue with Community law, that would not be sufficient to secure for it such effective judicial protection.
67. As a preliminary point, it must be pointed out that a court seised of a dispute governed by Community law must be in a position to grant interim relief in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed under Community law ( Factortame , paragraph 21, and Case C-226/99 Siples [2001] ECR I‑277, paragraph 19).
77. It follows from the foregoing that the answer to the second question must be that the principle of effective judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law must be interpreted as requiring it to be possible in the legal order of a Member State for interim relief to be granted until the competent court has given a ruling on whether national provisions are compatible with Community law, where the grant of such relief is necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of such rights.
Question 3
79. It is clear from established case-law that the suspension of enforcement of a national provision based on a Community regulation in proceedings pending before a national court, whilst it is governed by national procedural law, is in all Member States subject to conditions which are uniform and analagous with the conditions for an application for interim relief brought before the Community Court (Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest [1991] ECR I-415, paragraphs 26 and 27; Case C-465/93 Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft [1995] ECR I-3761, paragraph 39; and Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04 ABNA and Others  [2005] ECR I-10423, paragraph 104). However, the case in the main proceedings is different from those giving rise to those judgments in that Unibet’s application for interim relief does not seek to suspend the effects of a national provision adopted in accordance with a Community regulation where the legality of that regulation is contested, but rather the effects of national legislation where the compatibility of that legislation with Community law is contested.