CURIA - Documents
54 of 58
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?docid=2320...
the objectives of safeguarding national security and combating crime – an obligation requiring the
general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data, owing to the fact that that
legislation is incompatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, read in the light of Articles 7, 8
and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter.
214
The principle of the primacy of EU law establishes the pre-eminence of EU law over the law of the
Member States. That principle therefore requires all Member State bodies to give full effect to the
various EU provisions, and the law of the Member States may not undermine the effect accorded to
those various provisions in the territory of those States (judgments of 15 July 1964, Costa, 6/64,
EU:C:1964:66, pp. 593 and 594, and of 19 November 2019, A. K. and Others (Independence of the
Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C‑585/18, C‑624/18 and C‑625/18, EU:C:2019:982,
paragraphs 157 and 158 and the case-law cited).
215
In the light of the primacy principle, where it is unable to interpret national law in compliance with
the requirements of EU law, the national court which is called upon within the exercise of its
jurisdiction to apply provisions of EU law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if
necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, even
if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for that court to request or await the prior setting
aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means (judgments of 22 June 2010,
Melki and Abdeli, C‑188/10 and C‑189/10, EU:C:2010:363, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited; of
24 June 2019, Popławski, C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraph 58; and of 19 November 2019,
A. K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C‑585/18,
C‑624/18 and C‑625/18, EU:C:2019:982, paragraph 160).
216
Only the Court may, in exceptional cases, on the basis of overriding considerations of legal
certainty, allow the temporary suspension of the ousting effect of a rule of EU law with respect to
national law that is contrary thereto. Such a restriction on the temporal effects of the interpretation
of that law, made by the Court, may be granted only in the actual judgment ruling upon the
interpretation requested (see, to that effect, judgments of 23 October 2012, Nelson and Others,
C‑581/10 and C‑629/10, EU:C:2012:657, paragraphs 89 and 91; of 23 April 2020, Herst, C‑401/18,
EU:C:2020:295, paragraphs 56 and 57; and of 25 June 2020, A and Others (Wind turbines at Aalter
and Nevele), C‑24/19, EU:C:2020:503, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited).
217
The primacy and uniform application of EU law would be undermined if national courts had the
power to give provisions of national law primacy in relation to EU law contravened by those
provisions, even temporarily (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2019, Inter-Environnement
Wallonie and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen, C‑411/17, EU:C:2019:622, paragraph 177 and the
case-law cited).
218
However, the Court has held, in a case concerning the lawfulness of measures adopted in breach of
the obligation under EU law to conduct a prior assessment of the impact of a project on the
environment and on a protected site, that if domestic law allows it, a national court may, by way of
exception, maintain the effects of such measures where such maintenance is justified by overriding
considerations relating to the need to nullify a genuine and serious threat of interruption in the
electricity supply in the Member State concerned, which cannot be remedied by any other means or
alternatives, particularly in the context of the internal market, and continues only for as long as is
strictly necessary to remedy the breach (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2019, InterEnvironnement Wallonie and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen, C‑411/17, EU:C:2019:622,
paragraphs 175, 176, 179 and 181).
219
However, unlike a breach of a procedural obligation such as the prior assessment of the impact of a
project in the specific field of environmental protection, a failure to comply with Article 15(1) of
Directive 2002/58, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter, cannot
be remedied by a procedure comparable to the procedure referred to in the preceding paragraph.
Maintaining the effects of national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings would
2/15/2021, 4:58 PM