Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:02:40.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Temporal Limitation of Judicial Decisions: The Need for Flexibility Versus the Quest for Uniformity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Sarah Verstraelen

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Although the temporal effects of judicial decisions have not completely escaped the attention of academic reviewers, the research on this topic is far from thorough. Most research focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), thereby ignoring the temporal effects of judicial decisions of national or constitutional courts. This lack of interest is remarkable given the interaction between the national and European level.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 9 , 01 September 2013 , pp. 1687 - 1730
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See, e.g., Frank Balmes & Ribbrock, Martin, Die Schlussanträge in der Rechtssache Meilicke—Vorschlag einer zeitlichen Begrenzung der Wirkung des Urteils “auf Zuruf” der Mitlgiedstaaten?!, 1 Betriebs-Berater 17 (2006); Thomas Beukers, Case C-409/06, Winner Wetten GmbH v. Bürgermeisterin der Stadt Bergheim, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2010, 48 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1985 (2011); T. Koopmans, Retrospectivity Reconsidered, 39 Cambridge L.J. 287 (1980); Michael Lang, Limitation of the Temporal Effects of Judgments of the ECJ, 35 INTERTAX 230 (2007); Roman Seer, The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice: Limitation of the Legal Consequences?, 2006 Eur. Tax'n 470; M. Waelbroeck, May the Court of Justice Limit the Retrospective Operation of its Judgments?, 1 Y.B. Eur. L. 115 (1981); Ariane Wiedmann, Non-Retroactive or Prospective Ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Preliminary Rulings According to Article 234 EC, 5/6 Eur. L.F. 197 (2006).Google Scholar

2 See infra Part B.Google Scholar

3 See infra Part C.Google Scholar

4 See, e.g., Case 24/86, Blaizot v Univ. of Liège, 1988 E.C.R. 379, para. 27; Case C-347/00, Barreira Pérez v. INSS, 2002 E.C.R. I-08191, para. 44; Case C-453/02, Finanzamt Gladbech v. Linneweber, 2005 E.C.R. I-01131, para. 41; Case C-292/04, Meilicke v. Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt, 2007 E.C.R. I-01835, para. 34.Google Scholar

5 See infra Part D.Google Scholar

6 Charles de Secondat Montesquieu, Oeuvres de Monsieur de Montesquieu: De L'Esprit des Loix 391 (1764) (translation: The national judges are no more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law.).Google Scholar

7 See Walter van Gerven, Het Beleid van de Rechter 72 (1973); see also Pascale Deumier, Création du droit et rédaction des arrěts par la Cour de cassation, 50 Archives de philosophie du Droit 49, 53–54 (2007); François Ost, L'heure du jugement. Sur la rétroactivité des décisions de justice. Vers un droit transitoire de la modification des règles jurisprudentielles, in Temps et droit. Le droit a-t-il pour vocation de durer? 91, 94 (François Ost & Mark Van Hoecke eds., 1998).Google Scholar

8 See Allan R. Brewer-Carías, Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators in Comparative Law, in Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators: A Comparative Law Study 1, 10 (2011); Hans Kelsen, La garantie juridictionnelle de la Constitution, Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et a l'étranger 197, 224–25 (1928); Koopmans, supra note 1, at 296–99; Ost, supra note 7, at 96; François Rigaux, Une machine à remonter le temps: la doctrine du precedent, in Temps et droit. Le droit a-t-il pour vocation de durer? 55, 61 (Francis Ost & Mark Van Hoecke eds., 1998).Google Scholar

9 For a comprehensive analysis see Denys de Béchillon, Comment encadrer le pouvoir normatif du juge constitutionnel?, 24 Les Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel 78, 78–112 (2008) and Allan R. Brewer-Carías, Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators (2011).Google Scholar

10 See Christian Behrendt, Le juge constitutionnel, un législateur-cadre positif (2006).Google Scholar

11 See recently for Belgium: Cour constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 90/2012, July 12, 2012, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Oct. 8, 2012, 46,880; Cour constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 87/2012, June 28, 2012, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Aug. 23, 2012, 49,606; Cour constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 85/2012, June 28, 2012, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Aug. 23, 2012, 49,600; Cour constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 80/2012, June 28, 2012, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium] Aug. 23, 2012, 49,587; Cour constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 77/2012, June 14, 2012, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Aug. 17, 2012, 48,715. For France see: Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2012–258, June 22, 2012, J.O. 10356; Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2012–257, June 18, 2012, J.O. 10181; Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2012–253, June 8, 2012, J.O. 9796; Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2012–242, May 14, 2012, J.O. 9096; Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2012–236, Apr. 20, 2012, J.O. 7197.Google Scholar

12 Brewer-Carías, supra note 8, at 125–72.Google Scholar

13 Translation: Mouth of the law.Google Scholar

14 See Ost, supra note 7, at 95.Google Scholar

15 See the comparative study Friedhelm Hufen, Partie 2: Rapports sur la situation dans les différents pays, in Limitation des effets de décisions juridictionnelles en cas de constatation de l'inconstitutionnalité de normes juridiques (2008), available at http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Standardartikel/Themen/Europa/675967.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3.Google Scholar

16 See Brewer-Carías, supra note 8, at 94–102; Sabien Lust & Patricia Popelier, Rechtshandhaving door het Arbitragehof en de Raad van State door de uitoefening van de vernietigingsbevoegdheid: de positieve en negatieve bijdrage aan de rechtsvorming, 34 Rechtskundig Weekblad 1210, 1212–13 (2002); Rigaux, supra note 8, at 71–72.Google Scholar

17 See Ost, supra note 7, at 96.Google Scholar

18 See also in this respect Joubert v. France, ECHR App. No. 30345/05 (July 23, 2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int; Zielinski v. France, ECHR App. No. 34173/96, 1999-VII Eur. Ct. H.R. (Oct. 28, 1999) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int; Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. v. Belgium, ECHR App. No. 17849/91 (July 3, 1997) http://hudoc.echr.coe.int; Ost, supra note 7, at 95.Google Scholar

19 Out of all the Member States that provide for a certain degree of judicial review of statutes, hereby excluding Great Britain and the Netherlands, 64% opted for a general ex nunc effect. Only 24% attached to these judicial decisions a retroactive effect. The remaining 12% do not follow one general rule, but impose a temporal limitation on a case by case basis because of the inter partes-effect of their decisions. Friedhelm Hufen, The restriction of the Effects of Judgments in Cases of Ascertainment of their Unconstitutionality 8 (2008), available at http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Standardartikel/Themen/Europa/Summary.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3.Google Scholar

20 See Kelsen, supra note 8, at 218–19.Google Scholar

21 Id. Google Scholar

22 Hufen, supra note 15; Hufen, supra note 19.Google Scholar

23 Bulgaria (2007), Cyprus (2004), Czech Republic (2004), Hungary (2004), Latvia (2004), Lithuania (2004), Malta (2004), Poland (2004), Romania (2007), Slovakia (2004), Slovenia (2004).Google Scholar

24 See Hufen, supra note 19, at 7–8.Google Scholar

25 See Marckx v. Belgium, ECHR App. No. 6833/74, para. 58 (June 13, 1979), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int; see also Hufen, supra note 19, at 8.Google Scholar

26 See Advisory Opinion, Parl. Doc. Senate 1980–81, No. 704/1, at 40 (Belg.); Parl. Doc. Senate 1981–82, No. 246/2, at 359–60 (Belg.); Parl. Debates Senate 1982–83, 28 April 1983, 1837–1838 (Belg.); Parl. Doc. Senate 1983–84, No. 579/3, at 5 (Belg.); see also Roger Moerenhout, Art. 8 Bijz.W. 6 januari 1989, in Publiek Procesrecht 19 (P. Lemmens et al. eds., 1999).Google Scholar

27 See Simonart, Henri, La Cour d'arbitrage: Une étape dans le contrôle de la constitutionnalité de la loi 195–96 (1988); see also Éric Gillet, Recours et questions préjudicielles à la Cour d'arbitrage 137 (1985); Ernest Krings, Beschouwingen over de gevolgen van de door het Arbitragehof gewezen arresten, 8 Rechtskundig Weekblad 481, 488 (1986); Marie-Françoise Rigaux, L'effet rétroactif des arrěts d'annulation rendus par la Cour d'arbitrage et les effets de la norme annulé, 105 Journal des Tribunaux 589, 589 (1986).Google Scholar

28 Parl. Doc. Senate 1981–82, No 246/2, at 359–60 (Belg.); Parl. Doc. Senate 1983–84, No 579/3, at 5 (Belg.); see also Jan Velaers, Het Arbitragehof 102 (1985).Google Scholar

29 Bundesverfassungsgerichts-gesetz [BVerfGG] [Federal Constitutional Court Act], Mar. 12, 1951, BGBl. IS. at 243 (Ger.); Russell Miller & Donald P. Kommers, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht: Procedure, Practice and Policy of the German Federal Constitutional Court, 3 J. Comp. L. 194, 197 (2009).Google Scholar

30 Bundesverfassungsgerichts-gesetz [BVerfGG] [Federal Constitutional Court Act], Mar. 12, 1951, BGBl. IS. at 243, § 79 (Ger.).Google Scholar

31 Organic Law 2/1979 art. 40 (B.O.E. 1979, 23186) (Spain).Google Scholar

32 Const. of the Port. Rep., art. 282, sec. 3 (Apr. 2, 1976) (Port.).Google Scholar

33 Portuguese Report for the XIVth Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts, Problems of Legislative Omission in Constitutional Jurisprudence, 57 (June 2008), available at http://www.confcoconsteu.org/reports/rep-xiv/report_Portuguese%20_en.pdf.Google Scholar

34 François Ost & Sébastien Van Drooghenbroeck, Le droit transitoire jurisprudentiel dans la pratique des juridictions Belges, 26 Revue de droit de l'U.L.B. 1, 6 (2002).Google Scholar

35 Special Act on the Constitutional Court, of Jan. 6, 1989, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Jan. 7, 1989, arts. 10–14, 16, 18, available at http://www.const-court.be/en/basic_text/basic_text_law_01.html.Google Scholar

36 Id. at arts. 15, 17.Google Scholar

37 Id. at art. 18.Google Scholar

38 See Parl. Doc. Senate 1983–84, No. 579/3, at 18 (Belg.); Moerenhout, supra note 26, at 21; Velaers, supra note 28, at 104; Jan Velaers, Van Arbitragehof tot Grondwettelijk Hof 298 (1990).Google Scholar

39 Additional report, Parl. Doc. Senate 1983–84, No .579/3, at 7–8 (Belg.).Google Scholar

40 See Hufen, supra note 19, at 9.Google Scholar

41 Bundesverfassungsgerichts-gesetz [BVerfGG] [Federal Constitutional Court Act], Mar. 12, 1951, BGBl. IS. at 243, § 79 (Ger.); see also Werner Heun, The Constitution of Germany 177 (2011).Google Scholar

42 See Holger Schmitz & Philipp Stammler, Mehr Freiheiten für den nationalen Gesetzgeber! Die Rechtsprechung des EuGH und des BVerfG zur zeitlichen Beschränkung von Urteilswirkungen, 136 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 479, 485 (2011).Google Scholar

43 See Hufen, supra note 15, at 22; Werner Schroeder, Temporal Effects of Decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court, in Temporal Effects of Judicial Decisions (Patricia Popelier et al. eds., forthcoming 2013).Google Scholar

44 See Klaus Schlaich & Stefan Korioth, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht 251 (2010); Schroeder, supra note 43.Google Scholar

45 Hufen, supra note 15, at 27–30.Google Scholar

46 Const. of the Port. Rep., art. 282, sec. 4 (Apr. 2, 1976)(Port.).Google Scholar

47 Now the second paragraph of Article 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art. 264, Mar. 25, 1957, 83 O.J. 47, 163, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:en:PDF [hereinafter TFEU].Google Scholar

48 Special Act on the Constitutional Court, of Jan. 6, 1989, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Mar. 30, 2010, art. 8; see also TFEU, supra note 47, at para. 1.Google Scholar

49 See Lust & Popelier, supra note 16, at 1213; René Barents, Procedures en procesvoering voor het Hof van Justitie en het Gerecht van eerste aanleg van de EG 143 (2005).Google Scholar

50 See Schlaich & Korioth, supra note 44, at 251.Google Scholar

51 See Hufen, supra note 15, at 22–23; Schroeder, supra note 43.Google Scholar

52 See, e.g., S.T.C., Feb. 20, 1989 (Mar. 2, 1989 Boletín Oficial del Estado [B.O.E.] 52, No. 45/1989) (Spain); S.T.C., Feb. 6, 1992 (Mar. 3, 1992 Boletín Oficial del Estado [B.O.E.] 54, No. 13/1992)(Spain); S.T.C., Nov. 7, 2007 (Dec. 10, 2007 Boletín Oficial del Estado [B.O.E.] 295, No. 236/2007)(Spain); S.T.C., July 5, 2012 (July 30, 2012 Boletín Oficial del Estado [B.O.E.] 181, No. 150/2012)(Spain); see also Hufen, supra note 15, at 27–29.Google Scholar

53 See Hufen, supra note 15, at 27, 29.Google Scholar

54 Joaquim de Sousa Ribero & Esperança Mealha, Portugal-Constitutional Courts as positive Legislators, in Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators 721, 727 (A.R. Brewer-Carias ed., 2011).Google Scholar

55 Parl. Doc. Senate 1981–82, No 246/1, at 6 (Belg.); Parl. Doc. Senate 1981–82, No 246/2, at 115 (Belg.); Velaers, supra note 28, at 322.Google Scholar

56 This count includes 28 years, starting from 1985 up through 2012. See Verfassungsgerichtshof [Constitutional Court of Belgium], http://www.const-court.be/ (last visited Aug. 5, 2013).Google Scholar

57 See, e.g., Case C-51/87, Comm'n v. Council, 1988 E.C.R. 05459; Case 45/86, Comm'n v. Council, 1987 E.C.R. 01493; Case C-22/96, Parliament v. Council, 1998 E.C.R. I-03231; Case C-445/00, Austria v. Council, 2003 E.C.R. I-08549.Google Scholar

58 Case 81/72, Comm'n v. Council, 1973 E.C.R. 00575.Google Scholar

59 Case C-402/05, Kadi & Al Barakaat v. Council & Comm'n, 2008 E.C.R. I-06351; see also Case C-166/07, Parliament v. Council, 2009 E.C.R. I-07135; Case C-178/03, Comm'n v. Parliament & Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-00107; Case C-310/04, Spain v. Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-07285; Case C-392/95, Parliament v. Council, 1997 E.C.R. I-03213; Case C-271/94, Parliament v. Council, 1996 E.C.R. I-01689; Case C-388/92, Parliament v. Council, 1994 E.C.R. I-02067; Case C-7/87, Comm'n v. Council, 1988 E.C.R. 03401.Google Scholar

60 See, e.g., Case C-370/07, Comm'n v. Council, 2009 E.C.R. I-08917; Case C-155/07, Parliament v. Council, 2008 E.C.R. I-08103; Case C-106/96, United Kingdom v. Comm'n, 1998 E.C.R. I-02729; Case C-271/94, Parliament v. Council, 1996 E.C.R. I-01689.Google Scholar

61 See TFEU, supra note 47, at art. 264, para. 2.Google Scholar

62 For Belgium, see Ost & Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 34, at 23; Velaers, supra note 28, at 119. For the CJEU, see Alexander Türk, Judicial Review in EU Law 155 (2009). For Germany, see Friedhelm Hufen, Limitation des effets de décisions juridictionnelles en cas de constatation de l'inconstitutionnalité de normes juridiques, Partie 1 Expertise juridique 17 (2008), available at http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Standardartikel/Themen/Europa/675843.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3; Schroeder, supra note 43.Google Scholar

63 See, for example, case law of the Belgian Constitutional Court: Cour de Cassation [Cass] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 45/2012, Mar. 15, 2012, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/n/2012/2012-045n.pdf; Cour de Cassation [Cass] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 33/2011, Mar. 2, 2011, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/d/2011/2011-033d.pdf; Cour de Cassation [Cass] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 49/2007, Mar. 21, 2007, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/d/2007/2007-049d.pdf; Cour de Cassation [Cass] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 137/2006, Sept. 14, 2006, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/d/2006/2006-137d.pdf; Cour de Cassation [Cass] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 56/92, July 9, 1992, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/n/1992/1992-056n.pdf.Google Scholar

64 See, e.g., Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 67/2012, May 24, 2012, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Aug. 17, 2012, 48,437 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 184/2011, Dec. 8, 2011, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Feb. 8, 2012, 9934 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 104/2008, July 17, 2008, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Aug. 11, 2008, 41,562 (Belg.).Google Scholar

65 See e.g., Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 8/2011, Jan. 27, 2011, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Mar. 14, 2011, 16,190 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 49/2008, Mar. 13, 2008, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Apr. 14, 2008, 19,854 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 163/2006, Nov. 8, 2006, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Mar. 19, 2007, 14,993 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 131/2005, July 19, 2005, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Aug. 8, 2005, 34,459 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 128/2005, July 13, 2005, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Aug. 5, 2005, 34,363 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 114/2004, June 30, 2004, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/d/2004/2004-114d.pdf (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 66/98, June 10, 1998, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/f/1998/1998-066f.pdf (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 43/97, July 14, 1997, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], July 26, 1997, 19,345 (Belg.).Google Scholar

66 See, e.g., Case C-299/05, Comm'n v. Parliament & Council, 2007 E.C.R. I-08695; Case C-178/03, Comm'n v. Parliament & Council, 2006 E.C.R. I-00107; Cases C-164/97 & C-165/97, Parliament v. Council, 1999 E.C.R. I-01139; Case C-21/94, Parliament v. Council, 1995 E.C.R. I-01827; Case C-295/90, Parliament v. Council, 1992 E.C.R. I-04193.Google Scholar

67 See, e.g., Case C-284/90, Council v. Parliament, 1992 E.C.R. I-02277; Case C-65/90, Parliament v. Council, 1992 E.C.R. I-04593; Case C-7/87, Comm'n v. Council, 1988 E.C.R. 03401.Google Scholar

68 Brewer-Carías, supra note 8, at 125–172.Google Scholar

69 See J.H. van Kreveld, Temporele werking van bestuursrechtspraak, 7 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Bestuursrecht 203, 212 (2008); Lang, supra note 1, at 230–45; Ost & Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 34, at 51–55; Rigaux, supra note 8, at 70–71.Google Scholar

70 Henry, Patrick, La difficile mise en æuvre des zones d'aménagement différé en Région wallonn, Revue de jurisprudence de Liège, Mons et Bruxelles 1352, 1362 (2000)(“Ils devront se contenter de la satisfaction d'avoir contribué au progrès de la science juridique,” or “They will have to settle for the satisfaction of having contributed to the advancement of legal science.”).Google Scholar

71 See Ost, & Drooghenbroeck, Van, supra note 34, at 24, 38.Google Scholar

72 Pellissier, Gilles, Quatre ans d'application de la jurisprudence Association AC!—Une nouvelle dimension de l'office du juge, 656 Revue juridique de l'économie publique survey 7, para. 3 (2008).Google Scholar

73 Jacobs, et al., The European Convention on Human Rights 254, 254–60 (Robin C.A. White & Clare Ovey eds., 5th ed. 2010).Google Scholar

74 See Poland, Kudla v., ECHR App. No. 30210/96, § 152 (Oct. 26, 2000), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int.Google Scholar

75 See Belgium, Marckx v., ECHR App. No. 6833/74 (June 13, 1979), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int; J.R. v. Germany, ECHR App. No. 22651/93 (Oct. 18, 1995), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int; Walden v. Liechtenstein, ECHR App. No. 33916/96 (Mar. 16, 2000), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int; P.B. v. Austria, ECHR App. No. 18984/02 (July 22, 2010), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int; Ost & Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 34, at 51–55; Patricia Popelier, The European Court of Human Rights’ Approach to Retrospective Judicial Reversals, in Temporal Effects of Judicial Decisions (Patricia Popelier et al. eds., forthcoming 2013).Google Scholar

76 See Hufen, supra note 62, at 23.Google Scholar

77 See, e.g., Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG—Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1057/91, 2 BvR 1226/91, 2 BvR 980/91 (Nov. 10, 1998), http://www.bverfg.de/en/decisions/rs19981110_2bvr105791.html; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG—Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvC 1/07, 2 BvC 7/07 (July 3, 2008), http://www.bverfg.de/en/decisions/cs20080703_2bvc000107.html; see also Hufen, supra note 15, at 22; Schroeder, supra note 43.Google Scholar

78 These exclusions occurred within the scope of article 4, second paragraph of the Special Act on the Constitutional Court. This article states that after a declaration of unconstitutionality, a new six-month period opens in which an action for annulment of that statute can be brought before the Court. In 1992, the Court excluded from the effect ex nunc the specific case which initiated the proceedings that led to the declaration of unconstitutionality a few years earlier. In 2008 the Court maintained the general retroactive effect of its judgment for the party who brought the action for annulment before the Court. See Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 140/2008, Oct. 30, 2008, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Nov. 13, 2008, 59,258 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 56/92, July 9, 1992, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/n/1992/1992-056n.pdf.Google Scholar

79 See Rigaux, supra note 27, at 590–91; Ost & Van Drooghenbroeck, supra note 34, at 24.Google Scholar

80 Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 18/2012, Feb. 9, 2012, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Apr. 11, 2012, 23,464 (Belg.).Google Scholar

81 Organic laws on the Council of State coordinated by the Royal Decree of 12 January 1973, Article 14ter; Sarah Verstraelen, Het eerste gewin is kattengespin. De onzekere toekomst van artikel 14ter RvS-wet, 6 Tijdschrift voor Bestuurswetenschappen en Publiekrecht [TBP] 356, 359–60 (2012).Google Scholar

82 See infra Part D(I): Temporal Effect of Preliminary Rulings.Google Scholar

83 Bundesverfassungsgerichts-gesetz [BVerfGG] [Federal Constitutional Court Act], Mar. 12, 1951, BGBl. IS. at 243, § 31(1) (Ger.).Google Scholar

84 Id. §§ 78, 79.Google Scholar

85 Id. § 82 (stating explicitly that the sections 77 and 78 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act apply mutatis mutandis).Google Scholar

86 Id. § 95(3) (stating that when a complaint is upheld, the Court shall declare the law null and void, and reaffirming that § 79 needs to be applied mutatis mutandis).Google Scholar

87 See Hufen, supra note 62, at 23–24.Google Scholar

88 Special Act on the Constitutional Court, of Jan. 6, 1989, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Mar. 30, 2010, art. 28.Google Scholar

89 Opinion of Sir J. Mertens de Wilmars, Parl.Doc. Senate 1981–82, No 246/2, at 372.Google Scholar

90 See Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 171/2009, Oct. 29, 2009, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Dec. 29, 2009, 82,237 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 117/2008, July 31, 2008, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Sept. 17, 2008, 48,509 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 83/93, Dec. 1, 1993, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/f/1993/1993-083f.pdf (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 18/91, July 4, 1991, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Aug. 1991, 18,144 (Belg.); Francis Delpérée and Anne Rasson-Roland, La Cour d'arbitrage 108 (1996); Michel Mahieu, noot onder Cass. 19 februari 1997, JT 293, 294 (1997); Michel Mahieu & Gautier Pijcke, L'autorité dans le temps des arrěts préjudiciels prononcés par la Cour constitutionnelle, in Liber amicorum Michel Melchior 143, 155 (Paul Martens et al. eds., 2010); Patricia Popelier, Procederen voor het Grondwettelijk Hof 380 (2008); Velaers, supra note 38, at 405–06;Google Scholar

91 Amendment 47, Parl. Doc. Senate 2001–02, No. 2–897/4, at 11–12 (Senator Vandenberghe) (Belg.); Report on behalf of the Commission for Institutional Affairs, Parl. Doc. Senate 2002–03, No. 2–897/6, at 22 (Belg.).Google Scholar

92 Parl. Doc. Senate 2002–03, No. 2–897/6, at 14–15, 22, 36, 64, 76, 118, 138, 159–160, 172, 175–76 (Belg.); Parl. Doc. Senate 2002–03, No. 2–897/6 at 232–33 (Belg.).Google Scholar

93 For example, the Court declared a certain act unconstitutional, but it emphasized that given the social evolution, this act will become unconstitutional in the future. See, e.g., Cour de Cassation [Cass] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 56/93, July 8, 1993, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/f/1993/1993-056f.pdf(Belg.); Cour de Cassation [Cass] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 53/93, July 1, 1993, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/f/1993/1993-053f.pdf (Belg.); see also Popelier, supra note 90, at 382–84.Google Scholar

94 See Cour de Cassation [Cass] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 125/2011, July 7, 2011, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/d/2011/2011-125d.pdf (Belg.); Sarah Verstraelen, Toen barstte de bom: het Grondwettelijk Hof handhaaft in een prejudicieel arrest de gevolgen van een vastgestelde ongrondwettigheid, 28 Rechtskundig Weekblad 1230, 1230–41 (2012).Google Scholar

95 Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 48/2013, Mar. 28, 2013, available at http://www.const-court.be/public/n/2013/2013-048n.pdf (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 3/2013, Jan. 17, 2013, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Mar. 20 2013, 16,809 (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 1/2013, Jan. 17, 2013, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium], Mar. 20, 2013 (Belg.).Google Scholar

96 See Hufen, supra note 19, at 7–8.Google Scholar

97 Const., art. 190, para. 3 (Pol.).Google Scholar

98 2011. évi CLI. tövény a Alkotmánybíróság (Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court) at § 45(Hung.).Google Scholar

99 Id. § 45(3).Google Scholar

100 Id. § 45(6).Google Scholar

101 Czech Constitutional Court Act of 16 June 1993, § 71; Act of 20 January 1993 of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, § 41(b); Ján Svák and Lucia Berdisová, Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic as Positive Legislator via Application and Interpretation of the Constitution, in Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators 767, 775 (Allan R. Brewer-Carias ed., 2011).Google Scholar

102 Const., art. 190, para. 4 (Pol.).Google Scholar

103 Latvian Constitutional Court Law, July 25, 1996 Ziṇotãjs 14, § 31, para. 11, §32, para. 3 (June 5, 1996).Google Scholar

104 See Hufen, supra note 15, at 56, 69–70, 83–84.Google Scholar

105 Art. 136 Consituzione [Cost.] (It.).Google Scholar

106 Gianpaolo Parodi, The Italian Constitutional Court as Positive Legislator, in Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators 603, 618–20 (Allan R. Brewer-Carias ed., 2011).Google Scholar

107 See Hufen, supra note 15, at 56; Giuseppe Martinico, Report on Italy, in Temporal Effects of Judicial Decisions (Patricia Popelier et al. eds., forthcoming 2013).Google Scholar

108 Martinico, supra note 107.Google Scholar

109 Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz [B-VG][Constitution] BGBL No. 1/1930, art. 140, para. 5 (Austria).Google Scholar

110 Stelzer, Manfred, 'Pro-futuro’ and Retroactive Effects of Rescissory Judgments in Austria, in Temporal Effects of Judicial Decisions (Patricia Popelier et al. eds., forthcoming 2013).Google Scholar

111 See Hufen, supra note 15, at 10 & 46–48; see also Konrad Lachmayer, Austrian-Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators, in Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators 251, 258 (Allan R. Brewer-Carias ed., 2011).Google Scholar

112 Hufen, supra note 15, at 75.Google Scholar

113 See Hufen, supra note 15, at 64; see also Zdenek Kühn, Czech Constitutional Court as Positive Legislators, in Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators 445, 465 (Allan R. Brewer-Carias ed., 2011).Google Scholar

114 Tímea Drinóczi, Temporal Effects of Decisions of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, in Temporal Effects of Judicial Decisions (Patricia Popelier et al. eds., forthcoming 2013).Google Scholar

115 See Hufen, supra note 15, at 49.Google Scholar

116 See Art. 190, para. 3, Rozdzial III, Konstytucja Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (Pol.).Google Scholar

117 See Safjan, Marek, Poland—The Constitutional Court as Positive Legislator, in Constitutional Courts as Positive Legislators 701, 707 (Allan R. Brewer-Carias ed., 2011).Google Scholar

118 2011. évi CLI. tövény a Alkotmánybíróság (Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court) at § 45(4)(Hung.).Google Scholar

119 See Drinóczi, supra note 114.Google Scholar

120 See Lachmayer, supra note 111, at 257–58; see also Stelzer, supra note 110.Google Scholar

121 2011. évi CLI. tövény a Alkotmánybíróság (Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court) at § 45(2)(Hung.).Google Scholar

122 Id. § 45(4).Google Scholar

123 See Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz [B-VG] [Constitution] BGBI No. 1/1930, art. 140, para. 7 (Austria).Google Scholar

124 Id. Google Scholar

125 See 2011. évi CLI. tövény a Alkotmánybíróság (Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court) at §§ 39, 45 (Hung.).Google Scholar

126 See Art. 190, Rozdzial III, Konstytucja Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej (Pol.); see also Safjan, supra note 117, at 704.Google Scholar

127 See Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz [B-VG] [Constitution] BGBI No. 1/1930, art. 14, para. 7 (Austria); see also 2011. évi CLI. tövény a Alkotmánybíróság (Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court) at §45, para. 2 (Hung.).Google Scholar

128 See Loi 2008–724 du 23 juillet 2008 de modernisation des institutions de la Ve République [Law 2008–724 of July 23, 2008 on the Modernization of the Institutions of the Fifth Republic], Journal Officiel de la République Française [J.O.] [Official Gazette of France], Jul. 24, 2008.Google Scholar

129 See Benneti, Julie, La genèse de la réforme [The Genesis of Reform], 2 Actualité juridique Droit Administratif [Legal Admin. News] 74, 75–77 (2010) (Fr.); Didier Blanc, Les changements de l'état de droit: illustration française des quatre saisons du contrôle de constitutionnalité des lois [Changes in the Rule of Law: French Illustration of the Four Seasons of the Constitutionality of Laws], 2 Le Courant Juridique [The Legal Current] 13, 22 (2010) (Fr.); François Dieu, La modulation des effets des annulations contentieuses ou comment concilier principe de légalité et principe de sécurité juridique [Modulating the Effects of Cancellations or How to Reconcile the Principle of Legal Certainty], 44 Actualité juridique Droit Administratif [Legal Admin. News] 2428, 2428–36 (2006) (Fr.); Olivier Dubos & Fabrice Melleray, La modulation dans le temps des effets de l'annulation d'un acte administrative [Modulation in Time of the Effects of the Cancellation of Administrative Acts], 8 Droit Administratif [Admin. Acts] para. 1, 42–55 (2004) (Fr.); François-Xavier Millet, Temporal Effects of Judicial Decision–French Report, in Temporal Effects of Judicial Decisions (Patricia Popelier et al. eds., forthcoming 2013).Google Scholar

130 See e.g. Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2010–10, Jul. 2, 2010, J.O. 12120 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2010–15/23, Jul. 23, 2010, J.O. 13727 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2010–33, Sept. 22, 2010, J.O. 17292 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2010–93, Feb. 4, 2011, J.O. 2351 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2010–110, Mar. 25, 2011, J.O. 5406 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2011–146, Jul. 8, 2011, J.O. 11978 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2011–202, Dec. 2, 2011, J.O. 20015 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2011–212, Jan. 20, 2012, J.O. 1214 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2011–213, Jan. 27, 2012, J.O. 1675 (Fr.).Google Scholar

131 Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2011–163, Sept. 16, 2011, J.O. 15600; Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2011–222, Feb. 17, 2012, J.O. 2846 (Fr.).Google Scholar

132 See Millet, supra note 129.Google Scholar

133 See Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2010–32, Sept. 22, 2010, J.O. 17291 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2010–71, Nov. 26, 2010, J.O. 21119 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2011–147, July 8, 2011, J.O. 11979 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2011–183/84, Oct. 14, 2011, J.O. 17466 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2012–235, Apr. 20, 2012, J.O. 7194 (Fr.); Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2012–262, Jul. 13, 2012, J.O. 11635 (Fr.).Google Scholar

134 Puig, Pascal, Le Conseil constitutionnel et la modulations dans le temps des decisions QPC [The Constitutional Council and the Modulations in the Time of QPC Decisions], 3 Revue trimestrielle de droit civil [Rev. Trim. Dr. Civ.] 517, 517–20 (2010); see also Millet, supra note 129.Google Scholar

135 See Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2010–1, May 28, 2010, J.O. 9728 (Fr.).Google Scholar

136 See Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2010–83, Jan. 13, 2011, J.O. 881 (Fr.).Google Scholar

137 Id. Google Scholar

138 See Conseil constitutionnel [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision No. 2011–192, Nov. 10, 2011, J.O. 19005 (Fr.).Google Scholar

139 TFEU, supra note 47, at art. 267.Google Scholar

140 See Lecourt, Robert, Le role unificateur du juge dans la communauté [The Unifying Role of the Judge in the Community], in Études de droit des Communautées européennes: mélanges offerts à Pierre-Henri Teitgen 223, 233 (1984); Damian Chalmers et al., European Union Law 171 (2010).Google Scholar

141 See Case C-52/76, Benedetti v. Munari, 1977 E.C.R. 00163, para. 26; Case 69/85, Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft v. Germany, 1986 E.C.R. 00947, para. 13; Case C-446/98, Fazenda Publica v. Câmara Municipal do Porto, 2000 E.C.R. I-11435, para. 49.Google Scholar

142 See Case 66/80, Int'l Chemical Corp. v. Amminstrazione delle Finanze dello Stato, 1981 E.C.R 01191, paras. 13–14.Google Scholar

143 This, however, does not exclude national judges to refer questions of interpretation to the CJEU, even if they already were the subject of a preliminary ruling in a similar case. See Case C-30/62, Da Costa & Schaake v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Admin., 1963 E.C.R special edition 00031; Cases C-332/92, C-333/92 and C-335/92, Eurico Italia v. Ente Nazionale Risi, 1994 E.C.R. I-00711, para. 15; Case C-453/00, Kühne & Heitz v. Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren, 2004 E.C.R. I-00837; Barents, supra note 49, at 338–39; René Barents, Directory of EU Case Law on the Preliminary Ruling Procedure 262 (2009); Chalmers et al., supra note 140, at 171.Google Scholar

144 See e.g. Case 24/86, Blaizot v Univ. of Liège, 1988 E.C.R. 379, para. 27; Case C-347/00, Barreira Pérez v. INSS, 2002 E.C.R. I-08191, para. 44; Case C-453/02, Finanzamt Gladbech v. Linneweber, 2005 E.C.R. I-01131, para. 41; Case C-292/04, Meilicke v. Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt, 2007 E.C.R. I-01835, para. 34.Google Scholar

145 See Case C-228/92, Roquette Frères SA v. Hauptzollamt Geldern, 1994 E.C.R. I-01445, para. 17.Google Scholar

146 Case C-43/75, Defrenne v. Sabena, 1976 E.C.R. 00455, paras. 74–75.Google Scholar

147 See Case C-4/79, Providence agricole de la Champagne v. ONIC, 1980 E.C.R. 02823, para. 45.Google Scholar

148 See Case 109/79, Maïseries de Beauce v. ONIC, 1980 E.C.R. 02883, para. 44; Case 112/83, Société des produits de maïs SA v. Admin. des douanes et droits indirects, 1985 E.C.R. 00719, para. 17; Case C-33/84, Fragd v. Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato, 1985 E.C.R. 01605, para. 17.Google Scholar

149 See Case C-300/86, Van Landschoot v. NV Mera, 1988 E.C.R. 03443; Case C-333/07, Société Régie Networks v. Direction de contrôle fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne, 2008 E.C.R. I-10807; Case C-236/09, Assoc. Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and Others v. Conseil des ministres, 2011 E.C.R. 00000; Yves Thiery, La fin de la tarification homme-femme en Europe—case note CJEU C-236/09 [The End of Charging Men and Women in Europe—Case Note CJEU C-236/09], Journal des Tribunaux [J.T.] 344, 344–47 (2011).Google Scholar

150 See e.g. Case 41/84, Pietro Pinna v. Caisse d'allocations familiales de la Savoie, 1986 E.C.R. 00001; Case C-228/99, Silos e Mangimi Martini SpA v. Ministero delle Finanze, 2001 E.C.R. I-08401; Case C-333/07, Société Régie Networks v. Direction de contrôle fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne, 2008 E.C.R. I-10807; Case C-92/09 and C-93/09, Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v. Land Hessen, 2010 E.C.R. I-11063.Google Scholar

151 See e.g. Case 145/79, Roquette Frères v. Administration des douanes, 1980 E.C.R. 02917; Case 112/83, Société des produits de maïs SA v. Admin. des douanes et droits indirects, 1985 E.C.R. 00719; Case C-33/84, Fragd v. Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato, 1985 E.C.R 01605; Case 41/84, Pietro Pinna v. Caisse d'allocations familiales de la Savoie, 1986 E.C.R. 00001; Case C-333/07, Société Régie Networks v. Direction de contrôle fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne, 2008 E.C.R. I-10807.Google Scholar

152 See Case 61/79, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Denkavit italiana Srl, 1980 E.C.R. 01205.Google Scholar

153 See Barents, supra note 143, at 251–56; Lang, supra note 1, at 231–35.Google Scholar

154 See, e.g.I, Case C-402/03, Bilka v. Jette Mikkelsen and Michael Due Nielsen, 2006 E.C.R. I-00199; Case C-313/05, Maciej Brzeziński v. Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie, 2007 E.C.R. I-00513; Case C-73/08, Bressol v. Gouvernement de la Communauté française, 2010 E.C.R. I-02735; Case C-242/09, Albron Catering BV v. FNV Bondgenoten and John Roest, 2010 E.C.R. I-10309; Mathieu Isenbaert, Tempus fugit: de werking in de tijd vna een arrest van het Hof van Justitie inzake directe belastingen [Tempus Fugit: Operation in Time of a Judgment of the Court of Justice on Direct Taxes], 358 Tijdschrift voor fiscal recht [J. of Fiscal Rules] 243, 245–246 (2003).Google Scholar

155 See Balmes, & Ribbrock, , supra note 1, at 19.Google Scholar

156 See, e.g., Case C-163/90, Admin. des douanes et droits indirects v. Legros, 1992 E.C.R. I-04625; Cases C-363/93, C-407/93, C-408/93, C-409/93, C-410/93 and C-411/93, René Lancry v. Direction Générale des Souanes & Société Dindar Confort a.o., 1994 E.C.R. I-03957; Case C-57/93, Anna Adriaantje Vroege v. NCIV Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting BV & Stichting Pensioenfonds NCIV, 1994 E.C.R. I-04541; Case C-437/97, Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien v. Abgabenberufungskommission Wien, 2000 E.C.R. I-01157; Case C-372/98, The Queen v. Ministry of Agric., Fisheries & Food, 2000 E.C.R. I-08683; Case C-184/99, Rudy Grzelczyk v. Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, 2001 E.C.R. I-06193; Case C-475/03, Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl v. Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona, 2006 E.C.R. I-09373, para. 75 (Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs); Case C-292/04, Meilicke a.o. v. Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt, 2007 E.C.R. I-01835, para. 38 (Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl).Google Scholar

157 See Case 61/79, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Denkavit italiana Srl, 1980 E.C.R. 01205.Google Scholar

158 See e.g. Case 61/79, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Denkavit italiana Srl, 1980 E.C.R. 01205; Cases 66/79, 127/79 & 128/79, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Salumi a.o., 1980 E.C.R. 01237; Case C-57/93, Anna Adriaantje Vroege v. NCIV Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting BV & Stichting Pensioenfonds NCIV, 1994 E.C.R. I-04541; Case C-292/04, Meilicke v. Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt, 2007 E.C.R. I-01835.Google Scholar

159 See e.g. Case 24/86, Blaizot v. Univ. de Liège, 1988 E.C.R. 00379; Case C-262/88, Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group, 1990 E.C.R. I-01889; Case C-163/90, Admin. des douanes et droits indirects v. Legros, 1992 E.C.R. I-04625; Case C-437/97, Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien v. Abgabenberufungskommission Wien, 2000 E.C.R. I-01157; Wiedmann, supra note 1, at 199.Google Scholar

160 See Chalmers, et al., supra note 140, at 171.Google Scholar

161 Suggestions have been made. See Case C-475/03, Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl v. Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona, 2006 E.C.R. I-09373, para. 86 (Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs); Case C-475/03, Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl v. Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona, 2006 E.C.R. I-09373, para. 144 (Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl); Francesco Nanetti & Guilio Mazzotti, The (Un)lawfulness of IRAP in the European Legal System: The European Court of Justice's Potential New Trends with Regard to Temporal Limitation of its Interpretative Decision, 15 EC Tax Rev. 166, 169 (2006); Waelbroeck, supra note 1, at 123; Wiedmann, supra note 1, at 200–01.Google Scholar

162 See Lang, supra note 1, at 236–37.Google Scholar

163 See Case 61/79, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Denkavit italiana Srl, 1980 E.C.R. 01205.Google Scholar

164 See Case C-475/03, Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl v. Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona, 2006 E.C.R. I-09373, at para. 181 (Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl); Case C-292/04, Meilicke v. Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt, 2007 E.C.R. I-01835, at para. 14 (Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl); Wiedmann, supra note 1, at 199.Google Scholar

165 See Case C-475/03, Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl v. Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona, 2006 E.C.R. I-09373, para. 86 (Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs); Case C-475/03, Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl v. Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona, 2006 E.C.R. I-09373, para. 183 (Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl).Google Scholar

166 See Case C-475/03, Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl v. Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona, 2006 E.C.R. I-09373.Google Scholar

167 Case C-163/90, Admin. des douanes et droits indirects v. Legros, 1992 E.C.R. I-04625; Case C-72/03, Carbonati Apuani Srl v. Comune di Carrara, 2004 E.C.R. I-08027.Google Scholar

168 Case C-72/03, Carbonati Apuani Srl v. Comune di Carrara, 2004 E.C.R. I-08027, para. 40.Google Scholar

169 See Case C-292/04, Meilicke v. Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt, 2007 E.C.R. I-01835; see also Balmes & Ribbrock, supra note 1, at 19–20; Lang, supra note 1, at 236–37.Google Scholar

170 See Hufen, supra note 19, at 11–12.Google Scholar

171 Case C-314/08, Filipiak v. Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu, 2009 E.C.R. I-11049, paras. 47–74.Google Scholar

172 Id. at paras. 81–85.Google Scholar

173 See Verrijdt, Willem, Het Grondwettelijk Hof en het Unierecht: over een rechterlijke dialoog in de pluralistische rechtsorde [The Constitutional Court and European Union Law: A Judicial Dialogue in Pluralistic Law], in De invloed van het Europees recht op het Belgische privaatrecht [The Impact of European Law on Belgian Private Law] 41, 48–50 (Vincent Sagaert et al. eds., 2012).Google Scholar

174 See Case C-409/06, Winner Wetten v. Bürgemeisterin der Stadt Bergheim, 2010 E.C.R. I-08015.Google Scholar

175 See Sportwettengesetz Nordrhein-Westfalen [Act on Bets on Sporting Competitions of North Rhine Westphalia], May, 3, 1955, SGV NRW 7126, art. 1(1) (Ger.).Google Scholar

176 Formerly articles 43 and 49, respectively, of the Treaty Establishing the European Community.Google Scholar

177 See Case C-409/06, Winner Wetten v. Bürgemeisterin der Stadt Bergheim, 2010 E.C.R. I-08015, paras. 53–61.Google Scholar

178 Formerly Article 10 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community.Google Scholar

179 See TEFU, supra note 47, at arts. 263, 267.Google Scholar

180 The national legislation at issue did not effectively contribute to limiting betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner. See Case C-409/06, Winner Wetten v. Bürgemeisterin der Stadt Bergheim, 2010 E.C.R. I-08015, paras. 62–69.Google Scholar

181 See Lazowski, Adam, Half Full an Half Empty Glass: The Application of EU law in Poland, Common Mkt. L. Rev. 503, 548 (2011); Denys Simon, Effet d'exclusion du droit national [Exclusionary Effect of National Law], 12 Eur.-Revue Mensuelle 18, 18 (2010); Jerfi Uzman, Noot onder HvJ C-409/06, Winner Wetten, 8 september 2010 [Note Under HvJ C-409/06, Winner Wetten, 8 September 2010], 15 Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht [Adim. Case. L.] 1213, 1223 (2010) (Neth.).Google Scholar

182 See Beukers, supra note 1, at 2001.; Uzman, supra note 181, at 1223; Fabrice Picod, Pas de maintien provisoire d'une réglementation contraire au droit de l'Union [No Interim Maintenance of Regulations Contrary to Union Law], 39 La semaine juridique–édition générale [Legal Week—Gen. Ed.] 1792, 1792 (2010).Google Scholar

183 See Aubert, Michel et al., Pouvoir des juges nationaux [Power of National Courts] Actualite Juridique—Droit Administratif [Legal News—Admin. L.] 2305, 2306–07 (2010) (Fr.); Beukers, supra note1, at 1998–99; Rick van der Hulle & Rob van der Hulle, Op weg naar een minder strikte toepassing van de voorrangsregel? [Towards a Less Strict Application of the Priority Rule?], 12 Tijdschrift voor Europees en Economisch recht [J. of European Econ. L.] 490, 499 (2012); Simon, supra note 181, at 19.Google Scholar

184 In this case, the CJEU found that there were no overriding considerations of legal certainty at stake, given that the German legislation did not effectively contribute to limiting betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner. Advocate-General Bot added that the reasons why the legislation was contrary to Union law arose from the Gambelli judgment which was delivered more than 18 months before the adoption of the contested German measures. See Case C-409/06, Winner Wetten v. Bürgemeisterin der Stadt Bergheim, 2010 E.C.R. I-08015, para. 84 (Opinion of Advocate General Bot); Simon, supra note 181, at 20.Google Scholar

185 See Beukers, supra note 1, at 2000; see also Uzman, supra note 181, at 1225.Google Scholar

186 See Case C-409/06, Winner Wetten v. Bürgemeisterin der Stadt Bergheim, 2010 E.C.R. I-08015, paras. 84, 104 (Opinion of Advocate General Bot).Google Scholar

187 Id. at para. 116; Simon, supra note 181, at 20; Thomas Talos & Markus Arzt, The Winner Wetten Case and its Implications on the Primacy of EU Law, 5 Eur. L. Rep. 172, 173 (2010).Google Scholar

188 See Case C-243/01, Criminal proceedings against Piergiorgio Gambelli & Others, 2003 E.C.R. I-13031.Google Scholar

189 See Case C-409/06, Winner Wetten v. Bürgemeisterin der Stadt Bergheim, 2010 E.C.R. I-08015, para. 115 (Opinion of Advocate General Bot).Google Scholar

190 See Aubert et al., supra note 183, at 2307.Google Scholar

191 See supra part C(II)(1.1)(a) Constitutional or legal basis?Google Scholar

192 See Cases C-186/11 and C-209/11, Stanleybet and Sportingbet v. Ypourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, 2013 E.C.R. 00000, paras. 38–39.Google Scholar

193 Rob van der Hulle, Een gemiste kans? Case note CJEU C-186/11 and C-209/11 Stanleybet [2013] [A Missed Opportunity? Case Note CJEU C-186/11 and C-209/11 Stanleybet [2013]], 5 Sociaal-Economische Wetgeving [SEW] 239, 241 (2013).Google Scholar

194 See Case C-41/11, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL & Terre wallonne ASBL v. Région Wallonne, 2012 E.C.R. 00000.Google Scholar

195 See Arrěté du Gouvernement wallon de 15 février modifiant le Livre II du Code de l'Environnement constituant le Code de l'Eau en ce qui concerne la gestion durable de l'azote en agriculture [Order of the Walloon Government of 15 February Amending Book II of the Environmental Code Constituting the Water Code Regarding the Sustainable Management of Nitrogen in Agriculture] of February 15, 2007, Moniteur Belge [M.B.] [Official Gazette of Belgium] Mar. 7, 2007, 11,118; see also Case C-221/03, Comm'n v. Belgium, 2005 E.C.R. I-08307.Google Scholar

196 See Cases C-105/09 and C-110/09, Terre wallonne ASBL & Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v. Région wallonne, 2010 E.C.R. I-05611.Google Scholar

197 From 15 February 2007, the date of the old action program, until 6 May 2011, date of the entering into force of the new action program.Google Scholar

198 See Conseil d'État [CE] [Council of State] Jan. 18, 2011, Inter-Environnement Wallonie, No. 210.483, available at http://www.raadvst-consetat.be/Arrets/220000/900/220914.pdf#xml=http://www.raadvst-consetat.be/apps/dtsearch/getpdf.asp?DocId=22339&Index=c%3a\software\dtsearch\index\arrets_fr\&HitCount=14&hits=1fc+1fd+62c+62d+785+786+859+85a+985+986+e58+e59+f98+f99+&0846272013410 (Belg.).Google Scholar

199 See Case C-41/11, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL & Terre wallonne ASBL v. Région Wallonne, 2012 E.C.R. 00000, paras. 16–47 (Opinion of Advocate General Kokott); Case C-41/11, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL & Terre wallonne ASBL v. Région Wallonne, 2012 E.C.R. 00000, paras. 39–63.Google Scholar

200 See Case C-41/11, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL & Terre wallonne ASBL v. Région Wallonne, 2012 E.C.R. 00000, paras. 32–47 (Opinion of Advocate General Kokott).Google Scholar

201 Id. at para. 37.Google Scholar

202 See Tobias Lock, Are There Exceptions to a Member State's Duty to Comply with the Requirements of a Directive?: Inter-Environnement Wallonie, 50 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 217, 225–26 (2013).Google Scholar

203 Article 14ter states: “Where the Council so deems necessary, it shall, by a general ruling, specify which effects of the nullified provisions of administrative regulations are to be considered maintained or be provisionally maintained for the period appointed by the Council”. See Sarah Verstraelen, Artikel 14ter RvS-wet als alternatief voor legislatieve validatie? Of hoe het ene probleem door het andere vervangen wordt, 2 Tijdschrift voor Bestuurswetenschappen en Publiekrecht [TBP] 100, 100–13 (2012); Verstraelen, supra note 81, at 356–60.Google Scholar

204 See Lock, supra note 202, at 222–23.Google Scholar

205 See Cases C-105/09 and C-110/09, Terre wallonne ASBL & Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v. Région wallonne, 2010 E.C.R. I-05611.Google Scholar

206 See Verstraelen, , supra note 81, at 358–59.Google Scholar

207 Waele, Henri de, Noot onder HvJ C-41/11, Inter-Environnement Wallonie, 28 februari 2012 [Note on HvJ C-41/11, Inter-Environnement Wallonie, February 28, 2012], 6 Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht [Admin. Case L.] 450, 451–52 (2012)(Belg).Google Scholar

208 See Cases C-186/11 and C-209/11, Stanleybet & Sportingbet v. Ypourgos Oikonomias kai Oikonomikon, 2013 E.C.R. 00000, paras. 70–71 (Opinion of Advocate General Mazák).Google Scholar

209 Lock, supra note 202, at 227–29.Google Scholar

210 See also Adinolfi, Adelina, The “Procedural Autonomy” of Member States and the Constraints Stemming from the ECJ's Case Law: Is Judicial Activism Still Necessary?, in The European Court of Justice and the autonomy of the member states 281, 291–96 (Hans W. Micklitz & Bruno De Witte eds., 2012).Google Scholar