Community measures, natural persons and corporate bodies find sufficient possibilities of ind irectly challenging before domestic courts both the compatibility between national law provisions and Community law and the valid ity of Community acts implemented at the national level. Despite the absence of an express Treaty provision on the matter, the Court of Justice has indicated that national judges must be able to ensure provisional legal protection through interim measures until such time as a preliminary ruling is rendered The purpose of this article is to explore, in the light of the case law of the European Court of Justice, the domain of interim relief in EC law matters related disputes between individuals and Member States pending before national courts, with a view to inquire from a procedural law perspective whether it is possible to conceive a complete and autonomous Community law system of interim judicial protection before such courts Two different situations can be distinguished in the case law of the European Court of Justice on interim relief granted by national judges. The first one concerns the suspension of the enforcement of national legal provisions alleged to be incompatible with Community law, and will be called a Factortame3-type situation. The second one deals with the suspensionof enforcement of national measures implementing Community Regulations and positive interim orders disapplying such regulations in disputes where the applicants contest the alid ity of the latter. This will be designated as a Z A P 4-type situation A brief description of the facts, issues and outcomes of the cases covered by both types of situation is appropriate at this point, in order to set most clearly the object and focus fthe research In Factortame, the model case for the approach of the first type of situation, several persons engaged in fishing activities resulted affected by requirements as regards nationality residence and domicile, in the framework of a new system of registration of fishing vessels in the United Kingdom. The plaintiffs applied for judicial review of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 establishing such a new registration system, claiming that the requirements contained it were incompatible with Community law. Simultaneously, they lodged applications for terlocutory injunctions, seeking suspension of the enforcement of the newly enacted provisions until a final decision was rendered on their main actions Although the Divisional Court hearing the case granted the interim relief sought by the applicants, the decision was quashed by the Court of Appeal. The case ultimately reached the House of Lords, which held that under English law, jud ges have no jurisdiction to grant interim relief against the Crown, and that on the basis of the presumption of valid ity of national legislation, such judges could not set aside an Act of Parliament so long as a finding that it is invalid has not been made. Nevertheless, the House of lords submitted a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice under Article 234 (ex Article 177)of the Treaty order to ascertain(i) whether Community law obliged or gave national courts the power to grant interim protection of Community law rights, and (ii) what criteria were to be applied in Case C-213/89,R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (1990)ECRI-2433 hereinafter Factortame After the initials of Zuckerfabrik( Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89, Zuckerfabrik Suderdithmarschen v Hauptzollamt Itzehoe and Zuckerfabrik Soest GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Paderborn (1991)ECR 1-415), Atlanta ( Case C-465/93, Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others v. Bundesamt fur Ernahrung und Forstwirtschaft ( 1995)ECR l-3761)and Port( Case C-68/95, T. Port gmbh Co KG v Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft und Emahrung(1996)ECR l-6065, hereinafter Zuckerfabrik, Atlanta and Port, respectively Case C-334/95, Kruger gmbH Co KG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas(1997)ECR 1-4517, and Case C-17/98, Emesa Sugar(Free Zone )NV v. Aruba(2000)ECR I-675, regard issues dealt with similarly by the European Court of JusticeCommunity measures, natural persons and corporate bodies find sufficient possibilities of indirectly challenging before domestic courts both the compatibility between national law provisions and Community law and the validity of Community acts implemented at the national level. Despite the absence of an express Treaty provision on the matter, the Court of Justice has indicated that national judges must be able to ensure provisional legal protection through interim measures until such time as a preliminary ruling is rendered. The purpose of this article is to explore, in the light of the case law of the European Court of Justice, the domain of interim relief in EC law matters related disputes between individuals and Member States pending before national courts, with a view to inquire from a procedural law perspective whether it is possible to conceive a complete and autonomous Community law system of interim judicial protection before such courts. Two different situations can be distinguished in the case law of the European Court of Justice on interim relief granted by national judges. The first one concerns the suspension of the enforcement of national legal provisions alleged to be incompatible with Community law, and will be called a Factortame3 -type situation. The second one deals with the suspension of enforcement of national measures implementing Community Regulations and positive interim orders disapplying such regulations in disputes where the applicants contest the validity of the latter. This will be designated as a Z.A.P.4 -type situation.5 A brief description of the facts, issues and outcomes of the cases covered by both types of situation is appropriate at this point, in order to set most clearly the object and focus of the research. In Factortame, the model case for the approach of the first type of situation, several persons engaged in fishing activities resulted affected by requirements as regards nationality, residence and domicile, in the framework of a new system of registration of fishing vessels in the United Kingdom. The plaintiffs applied for judicial review of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 establishing such a new registration system, claiming that the requirements contained in it were incompatible with Community law. Simultaneously, they lodged applications for interlocutory injunctions, seeking suspension of the enforcement of the newly enacted provisions until a final decision was rendered on their main actions. Although the Divisional Court hearing the case granted the interim relief sought by the applicants, the decision was quashed by the Court of Appeal. The case ultimately reached the House of Lords, which held that under English law, judges have no jurisdiction to grant interim relief against the Crown, and that on the basis of the presumption of validity of national legislation, such judges could not set aside an Act of Parliament so long as a finding that it is invalid has not been made. Nevertheless, the House of Lords submitted a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice under Article 234 (ex Article 177) of the Treaty, in order to ascertain (i) whether Community law obliged or gave national courts the power to grant interim protection of Community law rights, and (ii) what criteria were to be applied in 3 Case C-213/89, R. v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (1990) ECR I-2433, hereinafter Factortame. 4 After the initials of Zuckerfabrik (Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89, Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen v. Hauptzollamt Itzehoe and Zuckerfabrik Soest GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Paderborn (1991) ECR I-415), Atlanta (Case C-465/93, Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (1995) ECR I-3761) and Port (Case C-68/95, T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (1996) ECR I-6065), hereinafter Zuckerfabrik, Atlanta and Port, respectively. 5 Case C-334/95, Krüger GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1997) ECR I-4517, and Case C-17/98, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v. Aruba (2000) ECR I-675, regard issues dealt with similarly by the European Court of Justice