Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout and Cie v Belgian State: ECJ 14 Dec 1995

It is a basic principle of European Union law that national law should provide effective legal protection, by establishing a system of legal remedies and procedures which ensure respect for the relevant European law right: ‘For the purposes of applying those principles, each case which raises the question whether a national procedural provision renders application of Community law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national instances. In the light of that analysis the basic principles of the domestic judicial system, such as protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of procedure, must, where appropriate, be taken into consideration.’ and ‘The case-law of the court in this area establishes a balance between, on the one hand, the need to respect that autonomy [of national courts] and, on the other hand, the need to ensure the effective protection of Community rights in the national courts. That is true both of the case-law on the subject of time-limits which I have set out above and of the decisions in Simmenthal and Factortame which are mentioned in the order for reference and are relied on by Peterbroeck, and which illustrate the court’s concern for the effective protection of Community rights.’
C-312/93, [1995] EUECJ C-312/93, [1994] ECR I-4599, [1996] All ER (EC) 242, [1995] ECR I-4599, [1996] 1 CMLR 793
Bailii
Cited by:
CitedAutologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
CitedFA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 18-Jun-2010
The claimant had applied both for asylum and humanitarian protection. Both claims had been rejected, but he was given leave to stay in the UK for a further year. He now sought to appeal not only against the rejection of the asylum claim but also the . .
CitedHome Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided with evidence unseen . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 January 2021; Ref: scu.161149