Application of EU law by the domestic Judge
Obligation to disapply national law
Where it is unable to interpret national law in compliance with the requirements of EU law, a national court may be required to disapply case-law which represents an obstacle to the full application of EU law, and even any provision of national law which is contrary to a provision of EU law with direct effect (Case C-573/17 Poplawski, para 58, 61). It is not necessary for the parties to expressly plead before the national courts which individual provisions of national law those courts should disapply or interpret in accordance with EU law. Instead, the identification of those provisions and the development of the approach for eliminating any contradiction between national law and EU law is part of the obligation of national courts to achieve the result envisaged by the directive (Opinion in Case C-254/19 Friends of the Irish Environment, para. 67, 69). In that way, the principle of primacy of EU law has made it possible to overcome numerous procedural obstacles arising from national law, in proceedings based on EU law. In some cases, it has led to the national court applying procedural rules and adopting measures in situations not provided for by national law (Case C-415/11 Aziz, para. 64).
However, there are exceptions to the obligation to disapply the conflicting measures if there is an overriding consideration: A risk that the annulment of the measure could create a legal vacuum that is incompatible with that Member State's obligation to adopt measures to transpose another act of EU law concerning the protection of the environment (Case C-41/11 Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne) or another general interest. In any event, any possible the maintenance of the effects of those acts may last only as long as is strictly necessary to remedy the breach found (Case C-24/19 A and Others () and à Nevele).
In Case C-411/17 Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen, the CJEU recognised that the security of electricity supply of the Member State concerned was also an overriding consideration. The Court nevertheless specified at the same time that considerations as to the security of electricity supply could justify maintaining the effects of national measures adopted in breach of the obligations under EU law only if the effects of those measures were annulled or suspended, and there was a genuine and serious threat of disruption to the electricity supply of the Member State concerned which could not be remedied by any other means or alternatives, particularly in the context of the internal market.