Safalero Srl v Prefetto di Genova.
Date: 2003-09-11
40. As that question is hypothetical, it is unnecessary to reply to it (see Case C-379/98  PreussenElektra  [2001] ECR I-2099, paragraph 39).
44. The judgment in  Radiosistemi , cited above (particularly paragraphs 47 and 66), states that such a requirement of national law is incompatible with Community law which has direct effect, whether it be Article 28 EC or the provisions of the Directive which acquire direct effect after the expiry of the time-limit for its implementation.
45. Furthermore, it follows from the judgment in  Radiosistemi  (particularly paragraphs 79 and 80), that a system of penalties which provides for fines or other coercive measures to ensure compliance with national rules that are recognised as being contrary to Community law must be held, from that fact alone, to be contrary to Community law, without there being any need to examine whether it meets the tests of non-discrimination or proportionality.
49. As a preliminary point, it should be recalled 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 directly from Community law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see, among others, Case 33/76  Rewe  [1976] ECR 1989, paragraph 5, and Case C-453/99  Courage and Crehan  [2001] ECR I-6297, paragraph 29).
50. Moreover, 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 Joined Cases C-87/90 to C-89/90  Verholen and Others  [1991] ECR I-3757, paragraph 24).
54. Since, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, an importer such as Safalero can claim in court proceedings against the public authorities that the fine imposed on it because the apparatus sold did not bear the type-approval stamp required by Article 398 of the Postal Regulations is illegal under Community law, it is necessary to consider whether there is available to it a legal remedy which ensures effective judicial protection of the rights which it derives from Community law.
55. In the present case it is clear that such an importer ' s interest in not having his trade impeded because of a national provision which is contrary to Community law is sufficiently protected where he can obtain a court decision establishing the incompatibility of that provision with Community law.
56. In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that the principle of effective judicial protection of the rights which the Community legal order confers on individuals is to be construed, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, as not precluding national legislation under which an importer cannot bring court proceedings to challenge a measure adopted by the public authorities under which goods sold to a retailer are seized, where there is available to that importer a legal remedy which ensures respect for the rights conferred on him by Community law.