Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales SAL v Administración del Estado.
Date: 2010-01-26
23. It must be recalled in this respect that, although it is not the task of the Court, in preliminary ruling proceedings, to rule upon the compatibility of provisions of national law with the legal rules of the European Union, it has repeatedly held that it has jurisdiction to give the national court full guidance on the interpretation of European Union law in order to enable it to determine the issue of compatibility for the purposes of the case before it (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑292/92 Hünermund and Others  [1993] ECR I‑6787, paragraph 8, and Case C‑380/05 Centro Europa 7  [2008] ECR I‑349, paragraph 50).
25. Moreover, according to settled case-law, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the courts of the Member States provided for by Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which a dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of European Union law, the Court is bound, in principle, to give a ruling (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑379/98 PreussenElektra  [2001] ECR I‑2099, paragraph 38; Case C‑18/01 Korhonen and Others  [2003] ECR I‑5321, paragraph 19; and Joined Cases C‑261/07 and C‑299/07 VTB-VAB and Galatea  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 32).
26. In the present case, the Court is not called upon to interpret national law or a judgment of a national court, but to provide the referring court with guidance on the interpretation of the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, so as to permit it to assess whether, under European Union law, it is required to disapply national rules relating to actions for damages against the State in respect of a breach of that law by national legislation (see, to that effect, Case C‑119/05 Lucchini  [2007] ECR I‑6199, paragraph 46).
29. In order to answer that question, it is to be recalled at the outset that, in accordance with settled case-law, the principle of State liability for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of European Union law for which the State can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the treaties on which the European Union is based (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others  [1991] ECR I-5357, paragraph 35; Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame  [1996] ECR I-1029, paragraph 31; and Case C‑445/06 Danske Slagterier  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 19).
30. In this respect, the Court has held that individuals harmed have a right to reparation where three conditions are met: the rule of European Union law infringed must be intended to confer rights on them; the breach of that rule must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between the breach and the loss or damage sustained by the individuals (see, to that effect, Danske Slagterier , paragraph 20 and case-law cited).
31. The Court has also had occasion to make clear that, subject to the right to reparation which thus flows directly from European Union law where those conditions are satisfied, it is on the basis of the rules of national law on liability that the State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss and damage caused, provided that the conditions for reparation of loss and damage laid down by national law are not less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims (principle of equivalence) and are not so framed as to make it, in practice, impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation (principle of effectiveness) (see, to that effect, Case C‑224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I‑10239, paragraph 58, and Case C‑524/04 Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation [2007] ECR I‑2107, paragraph 123).
33. In relation to the principle of equivalence, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, this requires that all the rules applicable to actions apply without distinction to actions alleging infringement of European Union law and to similar actions alleging infringement of national law (see, to that effect, Case C‑231/96 Edis [1998] ECR I‑4951, paragraph 36; Case C‑326/96 Levez [1998] ECR I‑7835, paragraph 41; Case C‑78/98 Preston and Others [2000] ECR I‑3201, paragraph 55; and Joined Cases C‑392/04 and C‑422/04 i-21 Germany and Arcor [2006] ECR I‑8559, paragraph 62).
34. However, that principle is not to be interpreted as requiring Member States to extend their most favourable rules to all actions brought in a certain field of law ( Levez , paragraph 42; Case C‑343/96 Dilexport [1999] ECR I‑579, paragraph 27; and Case C‑63/08 Pontin [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 45).
35. In order to determine whether the principle of equivalence has been complied with in the case in the main proceedings, it is therefore necessary to examine whether, in the light of their purpose and their essential characteristics, the action for damages brought by Transportes Urbanos, alleging breach of European Union law, and the action which that company could have brought on the basis of a possible breach of the Constitution may be regarded as similar (see, to that effect, Preston and Others , paragraph 49).
38. It should be pointed out that, contrary to what certain aspects of the contested case-law recalled in paragraph 20 of this judgment seem to suggest, reparation of the damage caused by a breach of European Union law by a Member State is not conditional on the requirement that the existence of such a breach must be clear from a preliminary ruling delivered by the Court (see, to that effect, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame , paragraphs 94 to 96; Joined Cases C‑178/94, C‑179/94 and C‑188/94 to C‑190/94 Dillenkofer and Others  [1996] ECR I‑4845, paragraph 28; and Danske Slagterier , paragraph 37).