Von Colson v Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891

Facts

• Ms Von Colson and Ms Kamann, both female social workers, were denied employment at a German prison on the basis of sex.
• The German court found that sex discrimination had occurred but limited compensation to reimbursement of travel expenses as per national law.
• The applicants argued this remedy was inadequate under the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC).
• The national court referred questions to the European Court of Justice regarding interpretation and application of the directive.

Issues

1. Whether national courts must interpret domestic law to give effect to the aims and provisions of EU directives even when those directives do not have direct effect.
2. Whether domestic law remedies must ensure the effective realization of the objectives of the Equal Treatment Directive in discrimination cases.
3. What limitations exist on the obligation of national courts to interpret domestic law in light of EU directives.

Decision

• The European Court of Justice held that provisions on sanctions in the Equal Treatment Directive were not clear and precise enough for direct effect.
• National courts are required, as far as possible, to interpret and apply domestic law in line with the wording and purpose of relevant EU directives.
• This obligation derives from Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and applies to all state bodies, including courts.
• Courts are not required to interpret national law contra legem or expand criminal liability beyond national legal provisions.
• The compensation provided under German law was considered inadequate to fulfill the directive’s objectives, though the directive did not prescribe specific remedies.

Legal Principles

• National courts must interpret domestic law in light of the wording and objectives of EU directives (principle of indirect effect).
• This interpretative obligation applies to all domestic law, regardless of when enacted relative to the relevant directive.
• Indirect effect is required where a directive lacks the clarity, precision, or unconditional terms essential for direct effect.
• Courts are not required to interpret domestic law contra legem or undermine legal certainty or legitimate expectations.
• The principle of indirect effect enhances the effectiveness of EU law within domestic legal systems.

Conclusion

The case confirms that national courts must, subject to the limits of domestic law, interpret national provisions to achieve the aims of EU directives, thereby establishing the principle of indirect effect in EU law.