Case C-105/03 Maria Pupino [2005] ECR I-5285

• Plaintiff was accused of a crime (mistreating children) and Italian criminal procedure used two stages, with evidence only being taken at the second stage.

• Nevertheless the prosecutor asked to take evidence from the children at the first stage, on the grounds that they might otherwise forget what happened (due to age and vulnerability).

  • Plaintiff opposed this.

• National court referred to ECJ the question of whether national law ought to be interpreted in light of a Council Framework Decision (made under pillar 3) or whether the ‘harmonious interpretation’ duty only related to EC laws (i.e. pillar 1).

• ECJ held that the interpretive duty applied to pillar 3 decisions too. 

ECJ

• Framework decisions state a result to be achieved, which is binding. A framework decision places an obligation on national courts to interpret national laws in conformity with this goal.

  • The fact that the ECJ has a lesser role under pillar 3, and that there are fewer procedures to ensure legality does NOT invalidate this point.

• It is comprehensible to say that those drafting the treaty of Amsterdam, which envisaged an ‘ever closer union’ (Article1 EU), intended legal instruments with similar effects to those in pillar 1 should contribute effectively towards Union’s objectives.

• Furthermore it would deprive the jurisdiction of ECJ to hear preliminary rulings under Article 35EU if it were not entitled to interpret national laws in light of framework decisions.

• NB It remains to be seen if other remedies like incidental effect and state liability (under Francovich) will extend to cover pillar 3 measures (Craig)

Incidental Effect

• NB: It’s a matter of controversy how distinct incidental effect is from direct horizontal effect.

• The idea is that unimplemented directives can have a limited form of horizontal effect when they don’t actually impose obligations on respondents (but, for example, merely prevent national legislation from imposing obligations).