Introduction
State liability for judicial breaches of European Union law arises when a Member State's court infringes EU law sufficiently seriously to warrant reparation. This principle, established through the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), ensures the effectiveness and uniform application of EU law across all Member States. The criteria for establishing such liability require a manifest breach of applicable law attributable to a court at the highest level of the national judicial system, against which there is no further judicial remedy. This case, Traghetti del Mediterraneo (C-173/03), provides important clarification on these criteria.
The Traghetti del Mediterraneo Case: Background and Facts
The case originated from a dispute concerning the application of Italian social security legislation to seafarers employed by Traghetti del Mediterraneo. The Italian authorities claimed social security contributions for periods during which the seafarers worked on vessels registered in another Member State. Traghetti del Mediterraneo argued this violated EU law, specifically Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community.
The Manifest Breach: Misapplication of EU Law
The CJEU found that the Italian court's interpretation and application of Regulation 1408/71 constituted a manifest breach of EU law. The Italian court incorrectly applied the territoriality principle in determining the applicable social security legislation, disregarding the specific provisions of Regulation 1408/71 designed to prevent overlapping social security contributions within the EU. This misinterpretation, according to the CJEU, was sufficiently serious to trigger state liability.
Conditions for State Liability: The Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame Criteria
The CJEU's judgment in Traghetti del Mediterraneo builds upon the principles established in the landmark cases of Brasserie du Pêcheur (C-46/93) and Factortame III (C-48/93). These cases laid down the three conditions for state liability: First, the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals. Second, the breach must be sufficiently serious. Third, there must be a direct causal link between the breach and the damage sustained by the injured party.
Assessing the Seriousness of the Breach: The Role of Discretion
The CJEU clarified in Traghetti del Mediterraneo that the assessment of whether a breach is "sufficiently serious" depends on several factors, including the clarity and precision of the rule infringed, the measure of discretion left to the national authorities, whether the infringement was intentional or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable, and the position taken by the EU institutions. The Court emphasized that where a national court has limited discretion, the threshold for establishing a manifest breach is lower.
Implications for National Courts and the Uniform Application of EU Law
The Traghetti del Mediterraneo judgment has significant implications for national courts across the EU. It strengthens the obligation of national courts, particularly those of last instance, to ensure the correct and uniform application of EU law. The prospect of state liability incentivizes national courts to refer questions concerning the interpretation of EU law to the CJEU through the preliminary ruling procedure (Article 267 TFEU). This mechanism encourages legal certainty and prevents divergent interpretations of EU law within the Member States.
Conclusion
The Traghetti del Mediterraneo judgment provides an important clarification of the principles governing state liability for judicial breaches of EU law. It strengthens the importance of the Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame III criteria, highlighting the need for a manifest breach, an infringement of a right conferred on individuals, and a causal link between the breach and the damage sustained. By holding Member States accountable for manifest breaches of EU law by their highest courts, the CJEU strengthens the effectiveness and uniform application of EU law across the European Union, ultimately safeguarding the rights of individuals under EU law. This case, alongside Köbler (C-224/01), forms a critical body of case law concerning state liability for judicial acts. The judgment highlights the responsibility of national courts, especially those of last instance, in upholding the principles of EU law and ensuring its consistent application within their respective jurisdictions. The potential for state liability serves as a powerful incentive for national courts to prioritize the correct application of EU law and to utilize the preliminary ruling procedure when faced with interpretative doubts, furthering legal certainty and the consistent development of EU law within the Member States.
