Atlanta v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case C-465/93) [1995] ...

Facts

• The Atlanta case (C-465/93) was decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 1995.
• The core issue concerned whether national courts could grant interim relief suspending national measures potentially contrary to Community (now EU) law, pending a final ruling from the ECJ.
• The case arose in the context of individuals and businesses seeking protection from the application of national measures that might infringe rights derived from Community law.
• The ECJ addressed the circumstances and conditions under which such interim relief may be granted by national courts.

Issues

1. Whether national courts have the power to grant interim relief suspending national measures alleged to contravene Community law pending a final ECJ decision.
2. What criteria national courts must consider when ruling on applications for interim relief in situations engaging Community law.
3. How to balance national procedural autonomy with the principle of effective judicial protection under Community law.
4. The extent to which national courts should consider both individual rights and the interests of the Community when granting interim relief.

Decision

• The ECJ affirmed that national courts must have the power to grant interim relief to safeguard rights under Community law.
• Specific criteria for granting such relief include serious doubt as to the validity of the national measure, urgency, and consideration of the Community interest.
• The ECJ clarified that national procedural rules apply, but their interpretation must not undermine the effectiveness of Community law or the principle of judicial protection.
• The Court emphasized that the criteria for interim relief must not be interpreted so restrictively as to deprive individuals of effective judicial protection.
• The ECJ recognized the ongoing development of case law refining these principles to maintain effective remedies within the EU legal order.

Legal Principles

• Effective judicial protection is a fundamental principle of the Community legal order, requiring access to remedies in national courts.
• When deciding on interim relief, national courts must find (1) serious doubt as to the validity of a national measure (not a final determination, but a credible legal argument); (2) urgency, involving the risk of serious and irreparable harm to the applicant; and (3) balance the applicant’s interests against the Community interest, including market functioning and uniform application of law.
• The granting of interim relief must respect both national procedural autonomy and the primacy of Community law.
• The criteria for interim relief prevent either unjustified suspension of national measures or denial of protection of rights under Community law.
• The ECJ’s judgment serves as guidance for subsequent cases, reinforcing national courts’ role in protecting individual EU law rights.

Conclusion

The Atlanta judgment established that national courts must have the power to grant interim relief in order to ensure the effective judicial protection of rights conferred by Community law. The decision set out precise criteria—serious doubt, urgency, and consideration of Community interest—that must guide national courts, thereby balancing national procedural autonomy with the supremacy of EU law and ensuring the ongoing effectiveness and uniformity of judicial protection within the Union.