Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 101kWORD 17k
19 March 2018
E-001631-18
Question for written answer E-001631-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Pál Csáky (PPE)

 Subject:  Clarifications to the reply to Question E-007794/2017
 Answer in writing 

In its reply to question for written answer E-007794/2017, the Commission did not, inter alia, say what would happen if contradictions in case-law were to develop in the interpretation of national legislation by the court of last instance, whereas on the basis of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the event of uncertainty around the interpretation of a Member State’s legislation, the basis must be the case-law of the court of last instance at Member-State level.

For example, what should be done if, in such a situation, the case-law of the court of last instance in a Member State develops in such a way that it disregards a legislative provision in the Member State — case-law which is not in line with that of the European Court of Human Rights (among other things, undermining legal certainty through contradictory judgments of the court of last instance) — or which may serve to reduce the range of entitlements guaranteed by EC law?

In such cases, might the Member States’ liability arising from the EU legal order also be applied, as a matter of principle?

Original language of question: HU 
Last updated: 23 April 2018Legal notice