Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: II.ÚS 419/14
    • Member State: Czechia
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 07/05/2014
    • Court: The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Unicampus, o. s.
    • Defendant: District court in Hradec Králové
    • Keywords: case law, consumer, consumer rights organisation, court, harmonisation
  • Directive Articles
    Injunctions Directive, Article 3, (b)
  • Headnote
    When there is a conflict between national laws and laws of the European Union, it is always necessary to use such interpretation of the national law, that is in compliance with the law of the European Union. This is also valid for the Directive 2009/22/EC.
  • Facts
    The defendant decided earlier in a case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff questioned the previous decision, because the defendant did not refer a question for preliminary ruling in this case to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The plaintiff stated that the preliminary ruling should have been used because of conflict of national law with the Directive 2009/22/EC. Hence, the plaintiff filed this complaint to the the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic for breaching his right to fair process.
  • Legal issue
    The defendant used correct interpretation of national laws according to the Directive 2009/22/EC and its decision was made correctly. It was not necessary to use the preliminary ruling. The right to fair process of the plaintiff was not injured.
  • Decision

    Is it possible to keep national laws contrary to the Directive 2009/22/EC?


    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature
    Sorted by
    • Member State: Czechia
    • Title: An injunction in the merits of a case in the context of Union and constitutional law
    • Author: Jan Vavrečka, Nicole Grmelová

    Czechia An injunction in the merits of a case in the context of Union and constitutional law Jan Vavrečka, Nicole Grmelová
  • Result
    The complaint was rejected as groundless.