having full effectiveness. Taking into account that the interim relief sought by the app3= 3. courts, in application of the principle of co-operation laid down in Article 5 of the EC Tr Inow Article 10; SA], to ensure the legal protection which persons derive from the d irect effect of provisions of Community law, and rely ing on Simmenthal, 4 further instructed the House of lords on setting aside the national provision preventing Community rules fror was intended to ensure the full effectiveness of a prospect judgment on the existence of rights claimed under Community law, the Court concluded that a court which in those circumstances would grant interim relief, if it were not for a rule of national law, is obliged to set aside that rule As a reinforcing ground, the Court pointed out that the effectiveness of the system who submitted a question for a preliminary ruling and stayed the proceedings were not abases established by Article 234(ex Article 177)of the Treaty would be impaired if national jud to grant interim relief until a jud gment was rendered on the main action The idea behind the reasoning of the Court can be summarized as follows: if provisional judicial protection of Community law rights is not available, the full efficacy of a jud gment to be rendered on the merits of the case could be endangered during the period of time elapsing until such a judicial decision is delivered Regardless of the -merely reinforcing-status the Court attributed to the ground relating to the need to preserve the effectiveness of the system established by Article 234 of the Treaty, its importance cannot be underestimated. In some cases, the considerable length of time needed by the Court to render a preliminary ruling may itself constitute a valid reason to believe that individuals should enjoy a Community law right to obtain interim relief before national courts. Among such cases are those in which a prompt judicial decision would be normally available and irreparable damage thus avoided if no recourse to article 234 of the Treaty were necessar Full compliance with the principle of effective judicial protection requires immediate availability of a remedy to protect Community law rights, pending determination of the substance of the relevant case. The Factortame jud gment ratifies this idea, extending the principles of the Courts previous case law on legal protection of Community law rights to the field of interim measures I Lambros Papadias states that according to the Court of Justice there should be continuous and coherent protection between the coming into being and the establishment of the existence of directly applicable Community law rights, and whenever the retroactive effect of a ruling risks being deprived of any meaning for the parties concerned, interim relief must be available to ensure that the final judgment will indeed be effective and operative. It can be said in this regard that in factortame, the Court of Justice recognized the right to In Case 106/77, Adm inistrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal(1978 ECR 629, the Court had stated that Community la wprovisions and measures must be fully and uniformly applied in all the Member States., and that as from their entry into force, they render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of national law 5 See Factortame, para. 22 See Ami Barav(1989)Enforcement of Community Rights in the National Courts: The Case for Jurisdiction to Grant an Interim Relief, CMLRev. 26, 369-390, p. 369 17 Lambros Papadias(1994) Interim Protection under Community Law before the Na tional Courts: The Right to a Judge with Jurisdiction to Grant Interim Relief, LIEl 1994/2, 153-193, p. 172courts, in application of the principle of co-operation laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty [now Article 10; SA], to ensure the legal protection which persons derive from the direct effect of provisions of Community law’,13 and relying on Simmenthal, 14 further instructed the House of Lords on setting aside the national provision preventing Community rules from having full effectiveness. Taking into account that the interim relief sought by the applicants was intended to ensure the full effectiveness of a prospect judgment on the existence of rights claimed under Community law, the Court concluded that ‘a court which in those circumstances would grant interim relief, if it were not for a rule of national law, is obliged to set aside that rule’. As a reinforcing ground, the Court pointed out that the effectiveness of the system established by Article 234 (ex Article 177) of the Treaty would be impaired if national judges who submitted a question for a preliminary ruling and stayed the proceedings were not able to grant interim relief until a judgment was rendered on the main action.15 The idea behind the reasoning of the Court can be summarized as follows: if provisional judicial protection of Community law rights is not available, the full efficacy of a judgment to be rendered on the merits of the case could be endangered during the period of time elapsing until such a judicial decision is delivered. Regardless of the - merely reinforcing - status the Court attributed to the ground relating to the need to preserve the effectiveness of the system established by Article 234 of the Treaty, its importance cannot be underestimated. In some cases, the considerable length of time needed by the Court to render a preliminary ruling may itself constitute a valid reason to believe that individuals should enjoy a Community law right to obtain interim relief before national courts. Among such cases are those in which a prompt judicial decision would be normally available and irreparable damage thus avoided, if no recourse to Article 234 of the Treaty were necessary. Full compliance with the principle of effective judicial protection requires immediate availability of a remedy to protect Community law rights, pending determination of the substance of the relevant case. The Factortame judgment ratifies this idea, extending the principles of the Court’s previous case law on legal protection of Community law rights to the field of interim measures.16 Lambros Papadias17 states that ‘according to the Court of Justice there should be continuous and coherent protection between the coming into being and the establishment of the existence of directly applicable Community law rights’, and ‘whenever the retroactive effect of a ruling risks being deprived of any meaning for the parties concerned, interim relief must be available to ensure that the final judgment will indeed be effective and operative’. It can be said in this regard that in Factortame, the Court of Justice recognized the right to 13 Factortame, para. 19. 14 In Case 106/77, Administrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal (1978) ECR 629, the Court had stated that Community law provisions and measures ‘must be fully and uniformly applied in all the Member States . . .’, and that as from their entry into force, they ‘render automatically inapplicable’ any conflicting provision of national law. 15 See Factortame, para. 22. 16 See Ami Barav (1989) ‘Enforcement of Community Rights in the National Courts: The Case for Jurisdiction to Grant an Interim Relief’, CMLRev. 26, 369-390, p. 369. 17 Lambros Papadias (1994) ‘Interim Protection under Community Law before the Na tional Courts: The Right to a Judge with Jurisdiction to Grant Interim Relief’, LIEI 1994/2, 153- 193, p. 172