## Facts

- The case arose from UK legislative measures under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which imposed strict nationality requirements for registering British fishing vessels.
- These requirements mandated that vessels be at least 75% British-owned, excluding many Spanish fishermen who contested the law.
- Spanish fishermen claimed the Act violated EU law, particularly the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality.
- They sought judicial review and requested interim relief to suspend the UK legislation pending assessment of its EU law compatibility.
- Under English common law at the time, courts could not grant injunctions against Acts of Parliament, preventing interim relief.
- The House of Lords referred a question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on whether EU law required national courts to grant interim relief in such circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether the supremacy of EU law requires national courts to set aside domestic legal provisions preventing interim relief for alleged breaches of EU rights.
2. Whether national courts are obligated to grant interim relief to protect rights derived from EU law, notwithstanding contrary domestic rules.
3. Whether failure to grant interim relief would undermine the practical effectiveness and protection of EU law rights.

## Decision

- The ECJ held that national courts are required to provide interim relief where it is necessary to protect rights conferred by EU law, despite conflicting domestic law.
- It found that any national rule preventing courts from granting such relief must be set aside.
- The ECJ reasoned that the full effectiveness of EU law would be compromised if domestic legal barriers could prevent courts from protecting EU law rights through interim measures.
- The judgment established that the primacy of EU law obliges national courts to prioritize EU law over domestic legislation that conflicts with EU rights, at least until a final determination on compatibility.

## Legal Principles

- Supremacy of EU law: EU law takes precedence over national law where the two conflict.
- Obligation for interim relief: National courts must set aside domestic legal provisions that bar interim relief necessary to safeguard EU law rights.
- Limitation of parliamentary sovereignty: Courts must disapply national law, even Acts of Parliament, where it conflicts with EU law in areas of EU competence.
- Direct effect: Certain EU law provisions confer rights on individuals that must be protected and enforced by national courts.
- Effectiveness of EU law: National legal systems must not hinder the full and practical effectiveness of EU law, including through interim relief.

## Conclusion

Factortame (No. 1) established that national courts must provide interim relief to protect EU law rights and set aside conflicting domestic law, affirming the doctrines of EU law supremacy and effective judicial protection of individual rights within the member states.


Factortame (No. 1) (C-213/89) [1990] ECR I-2433