The Historical Archives of the European Union (HAEU) announces the digitization of 319 procedural files related to cases referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 1991. The files are now available for consultation under special access conditions.
Among the newly available files are those from two cases especially notable for their lasting legal impact. Case C-271/91, M. Helen Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Judgment 2 August 1993; ECLI:EU:C:1993:335), also known as Marshall II, was significant for its decision regarding national limits on damages as judicial remedy for victims of discrimination. Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91, Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard (Judgment 24 November 1993; ECLI:EU:C:1993:905) was a landmark judgement in the field of the free movement of goods.
Marshall II
Case C-271/91, M. Helen Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Marshall II) marks the culmination of litigation initiated by Ms Helen Marshall, whose unlawful dismissal on grounds of sex discrimination had already been acknowledged by the Court of Justice in the earlier Marshall I ruling of 1986 (Case 152/84, Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority; ECLI:EU:C:1986:84).
The second phase of the case (Marshall II) concerned compensation for damages awarded under national law. Although UK legislation provided for damages in discrimination cases, it imposed a statutory cap of £6250. When the UK’s Industrial Tribunal assessed Ms Marshall's financial loss and injury to feelings at £19,405, it concluded that applying the statutory cap would violate Article 6 of Directive 76/207/EEC, which obliges Member States to provide effective judicial protection.
After the Authority’s successful appeal, Ms. Marshall brought the case before the UK House of Lords, which referred several questions to the CJEU:
• Is a national cap on compensation compatible with the Directive when monetary damages are the remedy?
• Must compensation include full damages, including interest from the moment the discrimination occurred?
• Does Article 6 of the Directive have direct effect?
In the judgment the Court ruled that (1) “reparation of the loss and damage sustained by a person injured as a result of discriminatory dismissal may not be limited to an upper limit fixed a priori or by excluding an award of interest to compensate for the loss sustained by the recipient of the compensation as a result of the effluxion of time until the capital sum awarded is actually paid” and (2) “A person who has been injured as a result of discriminatory dismissal may rely on the provisions of Article 6 of the Directive as against an authority of the State acting in its capacity as an employer in order to set aside a national provision which imposes limits on the amount of compensation recoverable by way of reparation”.
Marshall II thus shaped the implementation of EU equality law and clarified the scope of effective remedies in discrimination cases across the member states of the European Union.
Keck and Mithouard
Case C-267/91, Criminal proceedings against Bernard Keck and Daniel Mithouard (Keck and Mithouard; ECLI:EU:C:1993:905) judgment was a landmark decision that interpreted questions concerning competition and free movement of goods within the Community, key features of the EU’s internal market. It redefined the interpretation of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions, a concept first outlined in the Dassonville (CJUE 1553 and 1554) (ECLI:EU:C:1974:82 §§§) judgment and later developed through Cassis de Dijon (ECLI:EU:C:1979:42).
The case involved two supermarket managers who sold goods at a loss in violation of French legislation prohibiting retail sales below cost price. They argued that this prohibition restricted imports contrary to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty, which bans quantitative restrictions on imports and all similar measures affecting trade between Member States.
The Court of First Instance in Strasbourg referred the matter to the CJEU for clarification. In its ruling, the CJEU introduced a crucial distinction between product requirements (e.g., form, size, weight, composition, packaging, labelling), which fall under Article 30, and selling arrangements (e.g., rules on shop opening hours, price controls, or—as in this case—prohibitions on selling at a loss), which do not. For the Court, national provisions concerning certain selling arrangements fall outside the scope of Article 30 as long as they apply equally to all traders operating within the national territory, and affect domestic and imported goods in the same manner, in law and in fact.
In its ruling, the Court stated that “Article 30 of the EEC Treaty is to be interpreted as not applying to legislation of a Member State imposing a general prohibition on resale at a loss.”
By excluding such general rules from the category of trade-restrictive measures, Keck and Mithouard recalibrated the balance between EU market freedoms and Member States’ regulatory autonomy.
The archives of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Researchers may consult the historical archives of the European Court of Justice under special access conditions. The inventory of holdings for the CJEU is available here.