Case C-392/04 & C-422/04 i-21 Germany and Arcor v Germany [2006] ECR I-8559

• This was about when an administrator’s decision had to be overturned for incompatibility with a directive, etc. - very complex facts.

Key Points 

• In accordance with the principle of legal certainty, Community law did not require that administrative bodies be placed under an obligation, in principle, to reopen an administrative decision which had become final upon expiry of the reasonable time-limits, except where: 

  1. First, the administrative body must, under national law, have the power to reopen that decision. 

  2. Secondly, the administrative decision in question must have become final as a result of a judgment of a national court ruling at final instance. 

  3. Thirdly, that judgment must, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, be based on a misinterpretation of Community law which was adopted without a question being referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling in the circumstances set out in Article 234(3) EC. 

  4. Fourthly, the person concerned must have complained to the administrative body immediately after becoming aware of that decision of the Court.

• National procedural autonomy meant that the protection of the rights which individuals acquired under Community law were a matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, subject to effectiveness and equivalency requirements.