## Facts

- The dispute concerned doctors employed by South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust.
- Claimants argued that their on-call time at the workplace should be classified as working time under Directive 2003/88/EC (the Working Time Directive).
- UK national legislation defined working time and rest time differently, categorising certain on-call periods as rest, in contrast with the directive.
- The main legal issue was the conflict between national law and the directive’s requirements regarding the classification of on-call time.

## Issues

1. Whether national law may limit the application of the Working Time Directive, restricting its interpretation of "working time".
2. Whether national courts are obligated to interpret national law in line with EU directives, even where national legislation appears to preclude such an interpretation.
3. What are the limits on the obligation of national courts to interpret national law in conformity with directives, especially regarding legal certainty and fundamental national legal principles?

## Decision

- The ECJ confirmed the obligation of national courts to interpret national law in light of the wording and purpose of directives, wherever possible.
- This obligation, described as "broadened indirect influence," extends even where national legislation appears to block full compliance with a directive.
- However, courts are not required to interpret national law contra legem, that is, against the clear wording of national legislation, especially where criminal liability is involved.
- The judgment emphasised the need to respect legal certainty and fundamental national legal principles, such as the separation of powers and the non-retroactivity of criminal law.

## Legal Principles

- National courts must interpret domestic law to fulfil the aims of EU directives, so far as possible.
- The principle of indirect effect is not unlimited; it cannot override clear and unambiguous national law or violate essential principles of the national legal system.
- The ruling reinforced the significance of indirect effect as a tool for individuals to assert rights stemming from EU directives where direct effect is unavailable.
- When indirect effect cannot ensure compatibility with EU law, the principle of state liability (from Francovich and Bonifaci and Others, C-6/90 and C-9/90) provides recourse for affected individuals.

## Conclusion

Impact (C-268/06) reaffirmed and expanded the concept of indirect effect, obliging national courts to interpret their laws to achieve directive objectives unless this contravenes unambiguous national law or undermines legal certainty, thereby maintaining the balance between effective EU law enforcement and respect for national legal principles, particularly in employment contexts.

Impact v Minister for Agriculture and Food (Case C-268/06) [2008] ECR I-2483