The problem in this case was that Italian law excluded liability of the state for damage caused to individuals by an infringement of Community law committed by a national court adjudicating at last instance, where that infringement is the result of an interpretation of provisions of law or of an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by that court, and, on the other hand, also limits such liability solely to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court.
The Court held that those exclusions and limitations laid down in Italian law were contrary to EC law.
The Court found that to exclude any possibility that State liability may be incurred where the infringement allegedly committed by the national court relates to its interpretation of provisions of law or its assessment of facts or evidence would amount to depriving the principle of State liability of all practical effect. It would lead to a situation where individuals would have no judicial protection if a national court adjudicating at last instance committed a manifest error in the exercise of those activities of interpretation or assessment.
As for the limitation of State liability solely to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court, the Court pointed out that State liability for damage caused to individuals by reason of an infringement of Community law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance may be incurred in the exceptional case where that court has "manifestly infringed" the applicable law. Such a "manifest infringement" is to be assessed in the light of a number of criteria, such as the degree of clarity and precision of the rule infringed, whether the error of law was excusable or not and the non-compliance by the court in question with its obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC. Where the national court's decision is taken in manifest disregard of the case-law of the Court of Justice on the subject, the "manifest infringement" is to be presumed.
The Court added that it remains possible for national law to define the criteria relating to the nature or degree of the infringement which must be met before State liability can be incurred for an infringement of Community law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance. But under no circumstances may such criteria impose requirements stricter than that of a manifest infringement of the applicable law.
As a result, limitation of State liability solely to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court, as in Italian law, is contrary to Community law if such a limitation were to lead to exclusion of liability of the Member State concerned in other cases where a manifest infringement of the applicable law was committed.
Having said all this, I suppose somewhere in the fog there is a point to it all. My best guess is this is an attempt to explain that when I complain about being exhausted; when I say I would love to do whatever but really, I need to sleep; when I actually sleep for several days and ignore emails and phone calls, it really is simply part of this disease I have. The very best analogy I can come up with only works for some people. I Sometimes I just feel like I've got mono to the power of ten.
Posted by: Generic Viagra | September 14, 2010 at 01:25 PM