R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and Others (CJEU interim relief) Case C-213/89, [1990] ECR I-2433
Facts
Companies with Spanish interests operated fishing vessels previously registered in the United Kingdom. New registration requirements under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 prevented them continuing on the same basis. They challenged the legislation’s compatibility with Community law and sought interim protection while the dispute was resolved. The House of Lords considered that domestic rules prevented the necessary relief against the Crown and legislation. It referred the question to the Court of Justice. This record concerns that European preliminary ruling, distinct from the related House of Lords proceedings.
Legal Issue
Must a national court set aside a domestic rule that is the sole obstacle to interim relief needed to protect rights claimed under directly applicable Community law?
Held
The Court held that the effectiveness of Community law would be impaired if a national rule prevented a court from granting interim relief necessary to protect claimed Community rights while their existence was determined. A national court that would grant such relief but for the domestic prohibition had to set aside that prohibition. The ruling addressed the availability of judicial power, not an automatic right to an injunction for every claimant alleging an EU breach. The domestic court still had to determine whether the conditions for relief were met. The Court did not finally decide the compatibility of all the vessel-registration requirements in this interim-relief judgment.
⭐ Legal Principle
A national rule must be set aside where it is the sole obstacle preventing a court from granting necessary interim protection for claimed EU rights. The substantive conditions for granting the remedy remain to be assessed.
Significance
Factortame makes supremacy practical by protecting rights during litigation, when a later judgment might otherwise come too late. It should be separated from the domestic House of Lords stages and the later state-liability proceedings. The case concerns judicial power to give interim protection, not mandatory relief in every EU challenge. Its UK constitutional significance is historical and depends on the statutory framework through which Community law operated.
Common exam questions about this case
Did the Court say every EU claimant must receive an injunction?
No. It required removal of a domestic rule that was the sole barrier to relief the national court would otherwise grant. The court still had to assess the conditions for an interim remedy. Availability of jurisdiction and entitlement to its exercise are separate questions.
Why is interim relief important to effectiveness?
A final judgment may arrive after the claimant has suffered harm that defeats the practical value of the right. Interim protection can preserve the position while the EU issue is resolved. Factortame therefore addressed whether domestic procedural limits could prevent that protection from being considered at all.
Is this the same judgment as Factortame on damages?
No. This European ruling concerned interim judicial protection. Later litigation addressed substantive incompatibility and state liability, while separate House of Lords decisions dealt with domestic procedure and implementation. A case answer should identify the court, case number and stage before attributing a proposition to Factortame.