## Facts

- The dispute involved the posting of workers within the European Union.
- Danish law permitted trade unions to charge fees to employers of posted workers.
- This practice was contested as being incompatible with Directive 96/71/EC (the Posting of Workers Directive).
- The Danish courts referred to the CJEU the question of whether, under the principle of consistent interpretation, Danish law should be interpreted to exclude the charging of such fees to posted workers.
- The case provided the CJEU an opportunity to address the limits of the duty of consistent interpretation.

## Issues

1. Whether the Danish court was obliged under the principle of consistent interpretation to interpret its national law in conformity with Directive 96/71/EC so as to disallow the collection of fees from employers of posted workers.
2. Whether the obligation of consistent interpretation permits or requires interpretations contra legem, that is, contrary to the clear and ordinary meaning of the national law.
3. How national courts should balance the effective application of EU law with principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity in their domestic legal systems.

## Decision

- The CJEU ruled that national courts are required to interpret national law, as far as possible, in light of the wording and purpose of EU directives.
- The Court clarified that this obligation does not extend to interpretations that are contra legem, or contrary to the clear and ordinary meaning of national law.
- The Court stressed the importance of protecting legal certainty and non-retroactivity, finding that judicial interpretation should not impose obligations absent from established national law.
- The judgment recognized subsidiarity and the primary role of national courts in interpreting their national law, as long as such interpretation remains consistent with the framework of EU law.

## Legal Principles

- National courts are obliged to interpret domestic law, as far as possible, to achieve the result intended by EU directives (principle of consistent interpretation).
- This obligation does not allow for interpretations that are contra legem: national provisions that are clear and unequivocal cannot be reinterpreted to comply with directives if this would contradict their ordinary meaning.
- Legal certainty and non-retroactivity are fundamental principles that limit the scope of consistent interpretation and prevent the retroactive imposition of obligations.
- Effective implementation of EU law must be balanced with the need to respect the integrity of national legal systems.

## Conclusion

The CJEU in Dansk Industri (Case C-441/14) confirmed that the principle of consistent interpretation requires national courts to align national law with EU directives when possible, but prohibits interpretations that contradict the clear meaning of national legislation, thereby clarifying the limits imposed by legal certainty and non-retroactivity.


Dansk Industri v Estate of Erik Nielsen (Case C-441/14), ECLI:EU:C:2016:278