• In the case of Case 45/76 Comet [1976] ECR 2043, the European Court of Justice held there should be no discrimination when it comes to rights whether they deviate from EU law or national courts.
  • This case concerned direct effect, procedural rules, national courts and EU supremacy.
  • This case was about procedural autonomy and the principle of effectiveness.

Facts of the Case

  • C tried to prove that levies on exports had already been paid but could not claim in the lower courts that the levies fell outside the time limit.
  • In this appeal, C contended that EU law supremacy proved the levies could be contested despite falling within the time limit as they went against the European Economic Community laws.


  • Can member states set procedural rules when Community law is unclear?
  • How can individuals appeal using EU law rights through a national member state court?

Held by European Court of Justice

  • D’s claim allowed – the levies fell within the limitation period despite being a customs charge.

European Court of Justice

Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community

  • Specific national remedies are not needed.
  • A reasonable time period restriction still allows rights to be enforced. The principle of equivalence and effectiveness should be fulfilled.
  • “It is for the domestic law of each Member State to designate the courts having jurisdiction and the procedural conditions governing actions at law intended to ensure the protection of the rights which subjects derive from the direct effects of Community law.”