the Court of Justice to point out already at an early stage that the rights conferred by entrusted with the major task of ensuring legal protection of rights natural persons and en Community law are d irectly enforceable before national courts. National jud ges have bee corporate bodies derive from Community law. Through the recognition of the direct enforceability of substantive Community law rights, individuals have also been afforded a procedural Community law right to judicial protection before national courts are entitled, ruling that Community law requires national courts not only to protect the uo In Salgoil, the Court established the type of judicial protection to which individuals interests of those persons subject to their jurisdiction who may be affected by any possible infringement of Treaty provisions, but to do so directly and immediately. In Bozzetti, o the Court further stated that national judges are responsible for ensuring that rights derived from Community law are effectively protected Upon the recognition and development of the concepts of direct effect and the supremacy of Community law, many judgments following the same doctrine of the cases individuals claimed to benefit from the rights granted to them by the Treaty /iS, whel o ited above have been rendered by the court as a result of the more frequent and extended recourse to Article 234 of the Treaty in disputes pending before domestic cour Judicial protection comprises both access to a judge and the availability of remedies The right to a remedy before courts of law, as a general principle of Community law, reflects the constitutional trad itions of the Member States and entails a ratification of the legal standards contained in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights In summary, national judges must guarantee the legal protection of rights individuals derive from Community law. Such protection encompasses the right to direct, effective, and immediate legal coverage and the consequent availability of appropriate judicial remedies 2.2 Rationale behind the case law of the European Court of Justice 2.2. 1 Factortame-type situation In Factortame, the question submitted by the House of lords and the answer of the European Court of Justice dealt with aspects, the analysis of which rather corresponds to the next sections of this article, namely the jurisdiction to grant interim measures and the exercise of such jurisdiction. In fact, the Court did not expressly refer to a right to obtain interim relief before national courts. However, the twofold reasoning contained in its landmark entails an implicit recognition of the existence of such a right Firstly, the Court stated that, in accordance with its case law, it is for the national See Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen(1963)ECR I an Case 6/64, Costa v Enel(1964 )ECR 1141 Case 13/68, Salgoil SpA v. Italian Ministry for Foreign Trade(1968)ECR 453 10 Case 179/84, Bozzettiv Lutermizzi Spa and Ministero del Tesoro(1985)ECR 2301 For a comprehensive overview of the case law of the European Court of Justice in this area, see, among others, P. Cra ig andG. de burca(1996)EC Law: Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford: Clarendon Press; D. Wyatt and A Dashwood(1992)European Community Law, London: Sweet& Maxwell; and D. Pollard and M. ross (1994)European Community La. Text and Materials, London/Dublin/Edinburgh: Butterworths See Case 222/84, Johnston v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary(1986)ECR 1651 and Case 222/86, UNCTEF v Heylens(1987)ECR 4097. See also Case C-50/00, Union de Pequenos Agricultores v Council of the European Union(2002)ECR 1-6677the Court of Justice to point out already at an early stage that the rights conferred by Community law are directly enforceable before national courts. National judges have been entrusted with the major task of ensuring legal protection of rights natural persons and corporate bodies derive from Community law.8 Through the recognition of the direct enforceability of substantive Community law rights, individuals have also been afforded a procedural Community law right to judicial protection before national courts. In Salgoil, 9 the Court established the type of judicial protection to which individuals are entitled, ruling that Community law requires national courts not only to protect the interests of those persons subject to their jurisdiction who may be affected by any possible infringement of Treaty provisions, but to do so directly and immediately. In Bozzetti, 10 the Court further stated that national judges are responsible for ensuring that rights derived from Community law are effectively protected. Upon the recognition and development of the concepts of direct effect and the supremacy of Community law, many judgments following the same doctrine of the cases cited above have been rendered by the Court as a result of the more frequent and extended recourse to Article 234 of the Treaty in disputes pending before domestic courts, where individuals claimed to benefit from the rights granted to them by the Treaty.11 ‘Judicial protection’ comprises both access to a judge and the availability of remedies. The right to a remedy before courts of law, as a general principle of Community law, reflects the constitutional traditions of the Member States and entails a ratification of the legal standards contained in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights.12 In summary, national judges must guarantee the legal protection of rights individuals derive from Community law. Such protection encompasses the right to direct, effective, and immediate legal coverage and the consequent availability of appropriate judicial remedies. 2.2 Rationale behind the case law of the European Court of Justice 2.2.1 Factortame-type situation In Factortame, the question submitted by the House of Lords and the answer of the European Court of Justice dealt with aspects, the analysis of which rather corresponds to the next sections of this article, namely the jurisdiction to grant interim measures and the exercise of such jurisdiction. In fact, the Court did not expressly refer to a right to obtain interim relief before national courts. However, the twofold reasoning contained in its landmark ruling entails an implicit recognition of the existence of such a right. Firstly, the Court stated that, in accordance with its case law, ‘it is for the national 8 See Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) ECR 1 and Case 6/64, Costa v. Enel (1964) ECR 1141. 9 Case 13/68, Salgoil SpA v. Italian Ministry for Foreign Trade (1968) ECR 453. 10 Case 179/84, Bozzetti v. Lutermizzi Spa and Ministero del Tesoro (1985) ECR 2301. 11 For a comprehensive overview of the case law of the European Court of Justice in this area, see, among others, P. Craig and G. de Burca (1996) EC Law: Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford: Clarendon Press; D. Wyatt and A. Dashwood (1992) European Community Law, London: Sweet & Maxwell; and D. Pollard and M. Ross (1994) European Community Law: Text and Materials, London/Dublin/Edinburgh: Butterworths. 12 See Case 222/84, Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (1986) ECR 1651 and Case 222/86, UNCTEF v. Heylens (1987) ECR 4097. See also Case C-50/00, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council of the European Union (2002) ECR I-6677