Make a Submission
Vol. 39 (2019)
Polish Practice

Effectiveness of EU Directives in National Courts – Judicial Dialogue Continues: The Court of Justice’s Judgment in C-545/17 Pawlak

PDF
  • Dawid Miąsik,
  • Monika Szwarc
Dawid Miąsik
Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences
Monika Szwarc
Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Published 2021-07-19

Keywords

  • direct effect,
  • effectiveness,
  • EU directive,
  • EU law,
  • primacy of EU law
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Effectiveness of EU Directives in National Courts – Judicial Dialogue Continues: The Court of Justice’s Judgment in C-545/17 Pawlak. (2021). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 39, 267-284. https://doi.org/10.24425/pyil.2020.134485

Abstract

This commentary on the Court of Justice’s ruling in the Pawlak case concentrates on questions of the judicial application of EU law, in particular EU Directives. On the basis of the recent jurisprudence of the Court the authors present three issues: 1) the incidental effects of EU law for the procedural provisions of Member States; 2) the inability to rely on an EU directive by a member state’s authority in order to exclude the application of national provisions which are contrary to a directive; 3) the limits of the duty to interpret national law in conformity with EU law from the perspective of the Court of Justice and the referring court. Further, the article presents the judicial practice of the Polish Supreme Court, and in particular the follow-up decision of this Court not only taking into the account the ruling of the ECJ but also showing how the limitation of a conforming interpretation can be overcome in order to give full effect to EU law. In the authors’ view, this case is worth noting as an example of judicial dialogue in the EU.

PDF

References

  1. CJEU judgment in the case Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA, 106/77 ECLI:EU:C:1978:49.
  2. CJEU judgment in the case Comet BV v. Produktschap voor Siergewassen, 45/76, ECLI:EU:C:1976:191.
  3. CJEU judgment in the case Cresco Investigation GmbH v. Markus Achatzi, C-193/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:43.
  4. CJEU judgment in the case Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny Forsberg v. MSL Dynamics Ltd., C-43/95, ECLI:EU:C:1996:357.
  5. CJEU judgment in the case David Charles Hayes and Jeannette Karen Hayes v. Kronenberger GmbH, C-323/95, ECLI:EU:C:1997:169.
  6. CJEU judgment in the case David Smith v. Patrick Meade and Others, C-122/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:631.
  7. CJEU judgment in the case Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N v. Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya, C-384/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:810.
  8. CJEU judgment in the case Filipiak, C-314/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:719.
  9. CJEU judgment in the case Firma Ambulanz Glöckner v. Landkreis Südwestpfalz, C-475/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:577.
  10. CJEU judgment in the case Guarnieri & Cie, C-291/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:217.
  11. CJEU judgment in the case Ian William Cowan v. Trésor Public, 186/87, ECLI:EU:C:1989:47.
  12. CJEU judgment in the case Krystyna Alder and Ewald Alder v. Sabina Orlowska and Czeslaw Orlowski, C-325/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:824.
  13. CJEU judgment in the case Kutz-Bauer, C-187/00, ECLI:EU:C:2003:168.
  14. CJEU judgment in the case M.S. v. P.S., C-283/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:104.
  15. CJEU judgment in the case Mariusz Pawlak v. Prezes Kasy Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego, C-545/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:260.
  16. CJEU judgment in the case OSA, C-351/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:110.
  17. CJEU judgment in the case Paola Faccini Dori v. Recreb Srl, C-91/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:292.
  18. CJEU judgment in the case Polkomtel sp. z o.o. v. Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, C-397/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:256.
  19. CJEU judgment in the case Portgás – Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás SA v. Ministério da Agricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, C-425/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:829.
  20. CJEU judgment in the case Protect Natur-, Arten- und Landschaftsschutz Umweltorganisation v. Bezirkshauptmannschaft Gmünd, C-664/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:987.
  21. CJEU judgment in the case Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v. Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, 33/76, ECLI:EU:C:1976:188.
  22. CJEU judgment in the case Saldanha, C-122/96, ECLI:EU:C:1997:458.
  23. CJEU judgment in the case Seda Kücükdeveci v. Swedex GmbH & Co. KG, C-555/07, ECLI:EU:C:2010:21.
  24. CJEU judgment in the case SOA Nazionale Costruttori, C-327/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:827.
  25. CJEU judgment in the case The Minister for Justice and Equality and The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána v. Workplace Relations Commission, C-378/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:979.
  26. CJEU judgment in the case Vera Egenberger v. Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V., C-414/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:257.
  27. CJEU judgment in the case Werner Mangold v. Rüdiger Helm, C-144/04, ECLI:EU:C:2005:709.
  28. CJEU judgment in the case XC and Others v. Generalprokuratur, C-234/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:853.
  29. CJEU judgment in the joined cases ‘SEGRO’ Kft. v. Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala and Günther Horváth v. Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal, C-52/16 and C-113/16 ECLI:EU:C:2018:157.
  30. CJEU judgment in the joined cases Berlusconi and Others, C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-403/02, ECLI:EU:C:2005:270.
  31. CJEU judgment of 16 December 1976 in the case Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen, 45/76., ECLI:EU:C:1976:191.
  32. CJEU judgment of 16 December 1976 in the case Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG et Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, 33/76, ECLI:EU:C:1976:188.
  33. Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on information society services, OJ EU L 241 of 17 September 2015, p. 1.
  34. Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, OJ UE L 15 of 21 January 1998, p. 14.
  35. Galetta D.-U., Procedural Autonomy of EU Member States: Paradise Lost? A Study on the “Functionalized Procedural Competence” of EU Member States, Springer, Heidelberg: 2010.
  36. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 9 June 2016 in the case III SK 28/13.
  37. Kornobis-Romanowska D., Pewność prawa w UE. Pomiędzy autonomią jednostki a skutecznością prawa UE [Legal certainty in the EU. Between autonomy of individuals and effectiveness of EU law], C.H. Beck, Warszawa: 2018.
  38. Lenaerts K., Corthaut T., Of birds and hedges: the role of primacy in invoking norms of EU law, 31(3) European Law Review 287 (2006).
  39. Order of the Supreme Court (seven judge chamber) of 29 August 2019 in the case III UZP 3/17.
  40. Order of the Supreme Court of 14 April 2016 in the case IV Cz 15/16.
  41. Order of the Supreme Court of 14 July 2015 in the case II UZ 10/15.
  42. Order of the Supreme Court of 17 March 2016 in the case V CZ 7/16.
  43. Order of the Supreme Court of 17 May 2016 in the case II PZ 2/16.
  44. Order of the Supreme Court of 19 July 2017 in the case IIII UZP 3/17.
  45. Order of the Supreme Court of 20 April 2016 in the case II UZ 75/15.
  46. Order of the Supreme Court of 25 August 2015 in the case II UZ 16/15.
  47. Order of the Supreme Court of 3 June 2015 in the case V CZ 33/15.
  48. Order of the Supreme Court of 8 June 2015 in the case III SW 41/15.
  49. Orders of the Supreme Court of 23 October 2015 in the case V CZ 40/15.
  50. Prechal S., Directives in EC Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2005.
  51. Rozporządzenie Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji z dnia 19 grudnia 1997 r. w sprawie szczegółowych zasad i trybu udzielania wyróżnień oraz przeprowadzania postępowania dyscyplinarnego w stosunku do policjantów, Dz.U. 1998 No 4, item 15.
  52. Sołtys, A. Obowiązek wykładni prawa krajowego zgodnie z prawem unijnym jako instrument zapewniania efektywności prawa Unii Europejskiej, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa: 2015.
  53. Szpunar M., Bezpośredni skutek prawa wspólnotowego – jego istota oraz próba uporządkowania terminologii [Direct effect of community law – its essence and the attempt to organize terminology], 2 Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 4 (2005).
  54. Wróbel A., Autonomia proceduralna państw członkowskich. Zasada efektywności i zasada efektywnej ochrony sądowej w prawie Unii Europejskiej [Procedural autonomy of EU member states: principle of effectivness and effective judicial protection], 67(1) Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Społeczny 35 (2005).

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.