Marleasing v Comercial Int'l [1990] ECR I-4135

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Valera Imports is engaged in a dispute with Franco Retailers over the enforcement of a newly introduced EU directive relating to consumer contracts. The directive was adopted to harmonize consumer protections across Member States, but the dispute arises because Franco Retailers relies on older national regulations that appear to contradict the directive's terms. A local court in the fictional Member State of Orania is tasked with deciding whether it can still apply the older regulation, despite the directive’s objectives. Valera Imports insists that the directive creates an obligation for the national court to interpret the regulation in a manner consistent with EU law. Franco Retailers argues that because the national regulation predates the directive’s entry into force, it cannot be overridden at the judicial level.


Which statement best reflects how the Oranian court should approach the older national regulation in light of the EU directive?

Introduction

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) judgment in Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA ([1990] ECR I-4135) set an important example for the reading of national law in relation to European Union (EU) directives. This example tells national courts to read national law, even older legislation, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of relevant EU directives, even if those directives have not yet been put into national law. The ruling makes clear the tasks of Member States regarding the application of EU law and strongly aids the work of directives within the EU legal structure. This task of reading consistently applies regardless of whether the national rules were made before or after the directive in question.

The Facts of Marleasing

Marleasing SA brought an action before a Spanish court asking for the nullity of La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA's incorporation on the grounds of lack of cause, a ground for nullity under Spanish civil law. However, the First Company Law Directive (Directive 68/151/EEC) did not include lack of cause as a ground for nullity. This difference between national law and the Directive formed the main issue before the ECJ.

The ECJ's Ruling and the Principle of Consistent Reading

The ECJ held that national courts must read national law in a way that matches the aims and objectives of a relevant EU directive, even if that national law is older than the directive. The Court stated that this task comes from Article 4(3) of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) (formerly Article 5 of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community), which requires Member States to take all suitable steps to ensure they fulfill their obligations under EU law. This task extends to the courts, requiring national courts to read national legislation in light of EU law. The ECJ emphasized that this duty applies whether the national rules in question were made before or after the directive.

Effects on National Courts

The Marleasing judgment greatly affected the role of national courts in applying EU law. It gives national judges a big task to read national legislation in a way that achieves the desired result of the directive, even without clear national implementing legislation. This task requires courts to consider the objectives and aims of the directive. This method supports the principle of sincere cooperation found in Article 4(3) TEU.

Limits of Consistent Reading

While Marleasing sets a strong duty of consistent reading, this duty is not absolute. The ECJ clarified that national courts are not required to read national law against the clear and straightforward wording of national law. The reading must stay within the limits of acceptable reading under national legal principles. If a reading consistent with a directive is impossible under national law, it is the task of the national legislature, not the courts, to change the conflicting national rules.

Relation to Direct Effect and Indirect Effect

The Marleasing principle of consistent reading adds to the ideas of direct effect and indirect effect. Direct effect allows individuals to use the provisions of a directive against the state in certain situations, even if it has not been put into national law. Indirect effect, as established in Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ([1984] ECR 1891), requires national courts to read national law in line with the objectives of a directive where direct effect does not apply, such as in disputes between private individuals. Marleasing extends this task to all national legislation, even older laws, and supports the importance of achieving the objectives of directives through reading.

Examples of the Application of the Marleasing Principle

The Marleasing principle has been used in many cases across different areas of EU law. For example, in the case of Adeneler v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (C-212/04), the ECJ repeated the task of national courts to read national law, even older legislation, in light of Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time. This showed the ongoing use of the Marleasing principle in ensuring the effective use of EU social policy directives. Furthermore, in areas such as consumer protection and environmental law, the principle has played a key role in aligning national legislation with EU directives.

Conclusion

The Marleasing judgment is an important development in EU law, greatly aiding the work of directives by extending the duty of consistent reading to all national law, regardless of its timing relative to the directive. This principle supports the task of national courts in the EU legal framework, requiring them to actively work for a reading of national law consistent with the objectives of EU directives. While the duty is not unlimited and respects the limits of national legal systems, it supports the principle of sincere cooperation and helps the uniform use of EU law across Member States. The continued use of the Marleasing principle in later ECJ decisions shows its lasting importance in shaping the relationship between national and EU law. The case serves as a key example of the active interplay between the ECJ and national courts in achieving the main objectives of the EU legal structure. It is important for legal professionals and anyone involved with EU law to understand the wide-reaching effects of this landmark judgment.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal