Köbler v Republik Österreich Case C-224/01, [2003] ECR I-10239

Gerhard Köbler, a university professor in Austria, sought a special length-of-service salary increment. The national rule counted service at Austrian universities but not relevant university service in other Member States. His challenge reached the Austrian Administrative Court, which ultimately rejected it after withdrawing a preliminary reference. Köbler then brought proceedings against Austria, alleging that the final judicial decision infringed Community law. The damages court referred questions about whether Member State liability could arise from a judgment of a court adjudicating at last instance.

Can a Member State be liable for a final court’s infringement of EU law, and was the infringement in Köbler’s salary-increment litigation sufficiently serious to justify compensation?

The Court held that the principle of Member State liability could extend to decisions of courts of last instance. Judicial independence and finality did not justify complete immunity from an action seeking compensation rather than reversal of the judgment. However, liability was exceptional and required a manifest infringement of applicable EU law. Relevant factors included clarity of the rule, whether the error was excusable and compliance with the reference obligation. The national service condition was incompatible with free movement, but the breach in the particular judicial decision was not sufficiently serious to establish liability. Recognition of the cause of action therefore did not mean Köbler obtained damages.

A Member State may incur liability for a manifest infringement of EU law by a court of last instance. The high seriousness threshold preserves the exceptional nature of judicial liability; an incorrect judgment alone does not establish compensation.

Köbler extends the principle of state liability across branches of government. Traghetti confirms that national immunity rules cannot exclude the EU standard, while Ferreira examines reference duties and remedies. The distinction between liability in principle and failure on the facts is essential. The case concerns compensation against the state, rather than personal liability of the judge or automatic reopening of the original litigation.