Limits to the limits of the principle of consistent interpretation? Commentary on the Court’s decision in Spedition Welter

Publishers Abstract
This article focuses primarily on the various implications that the European Court of Justice’s ruling in Spedition Welter may be said to have for the development of the principle of consistent interpretation under EU and EEA law. The Court’s decision—effectively requiring an interpretation of national law in conformity with the latest EU Motor Insurance Directive , regardless of whether it might be possible to do so or not under national law—is as striking as it is difficult to explain. Viewed against past case law, it is argued here that the Court’s reasoning may be capable of being understood in several different (yet equally problematic) ways, and possibly as providing an exception to the well-established contra legem limitation to the principle itself. Beyond the potential uniformity concerns that this might naturally give rise to under both EU and EEA law, the case would also seem indicative of the growing tensions between the EU and national courts more generally over the past few years.

• Primary Source

Sweet and Maxwell: European Law Review http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/catalogue/productdetails.aspx?recordid=427&productid=6968

ESO: Background information: Judgement Spedition Welter GmbH v Avanssur SA http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d528b993867adb4ca688abc5c86a7776e5.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4Pa3mMe0?text=&docid=142821&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=426339

---