respectively. Section 2 deals with an aspect of interim relief directly related to the principle of due process, including the right to bring an action and the access to a judge. The starting point of analysis will be the concept of judicial protection in the case law of the European Court of Justice, which provides the appropriate framework for ad dressing the rationale behind the udgments representing our two types of situation. The questions on whether that rationale is the same in both types of situation, whether Community law imposes upon national courts the duty to grant interim measures in all cases, and above all, whether ind ividuals enjoy an autonomous Community law right to obtain interim legal protection before national courts remain to be answered So far as the jurisdiction conferred upon national courts to grant interim measures in litigation involving EC law is concerned, the main thrust of the analysis will be focused or the source from which such power emanates and the grounds relied upon by the Court of Justice in order to define it. In addition, the said jurisdiction will be addressed from a procedural law perspective, on the basis of the relationship and interplay between the award of interim relief and the decision of a case on the substance, and within the particular context of the Community law preliminary rulings mechanism under Article 234 of the Treaty, in order to determine how and to what extent such power is exclusive or concurrent vis-a-vis the jurisd iction of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance under Articles 242 and 243 of the treat national judges to grant interim relief, namely (i the availability of remedies and ithe fed upon Four aspects will be covered by section 4 on the exercise of the power conferred upon procedural rules applicable to interlocutory proceedings, (ii) the cond itions and requirements under which interim measures may be ordered, (ii) the discretion reserved to national courts for the evaluation of the fulfilment of such cond itions and for the adoption of a decision on whether to make an award in a particular case, and (iv) the possibil ity of judicial review of the decision adopted by a national court. Perhaps the most significant issues to be discussed here will be the extent to which national procedural autonomy is affected by the requirements laid down by the Court of Justice in the Z.A.P. litigation and, on the other hand whether the conditions applicable to the award of interim measures under a Factortame-type situation should be left entirely to the different procedural law systems of the Member States It should be noted that the normative aspect of interim relief before national courts has been progressively developed through case law only. Although the judgments rendered by the European Court of Justice allow the elaboration of somewhat general principles governing the award of interim measures under the two types of situation, the lack of a systematic procedural law approach, not only on the part of the Court but also in legal literature entails intrinsic difficulties in drawing the lines among the three elements on the basis of which the research will be conducted. In these circumstances, some occasiona/e overlaps will be unavoidable After the issues presented in this introductory section have been fully discussed, the possibilities of discovering whether a complete and autonomous system of interim jud icial protection of Community law rights before national courts is emerging will hopefully be much greater 2. The right to obtain interim relief before national courts 2. 1 Direct, immediate and effective judicial protection The importance attributed to the role of individuals in the European integration process ledrespectively. Section 2 deals with an aspect of interim relief directly related to the principle of due process, including the right to bring an action and the access to a judge. The starting point of analysis will be the concept of judicial protection in the case law of the European Court of Justice, which provides the appropriate framework for addressing the rationale behind the judgments representing our two types of situation. The questions on whether that rationale is the same in both types of situation, whether Community law imposes upon national courts the duty to grant interim measures in all cases, and above all, whether individuals enjoy an autonomous Community law right to obtain interim legal protection before national courts remain to be answered. So far as the jurisdiction conferred upon national courts to grant interim measures in litigation involving EC law is concerned, the main thrust of the analysis will be focused on the source from which such power emanates and the grounds relied upon by the Court of Justice in order to define it. In addition, the said jurisdiction will be addressed from a procedural law perspective, on the basis of the relationship and interplay between the award of interim relief and the decision of a case on the substance, and within the particular context of the Community law preliminary rulings mechanism under Article 234 of the Treaty, in order to determine how and to what extent such power is exclusive or concurrent vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance under Articles 242 and 243 of the Treaty. Four aspects will be covered by section 4 on the exercise of the power conferred upon national judges to grant interim relief, namely (i) the availability of remedies and the procedural rules applicable to interlocutory proceedings, (ii) the conditions and requirements under which interim measures may be ordered, (iii) the discretion reserved to national courts for the evaluation of the fulfilment of such conditions and for the adoption of a decision on whether to make an award in a particular case, and (iv) the possibility of judicial review of the decision adopted by a national court. Perhaps the most significant issues to be discussed here will be the extent to which national procedural autonomy is affected by the requirements laid down by the Court of Justice in the Z.A.P. litigation and, on the other hand, whether the conditions applicable to the award of interim measures under a Factortame-type situation should be left entirely to the different procedural law systems of the Member States. It should be noted that the normative aspect of interim relief before national courts has been progressively developed through case law only. Although the judgments rendered by the European Court of Justice allow the elaboration of somewhat general principles governing the award of interim measures under the two types of situation, the lack of a systematic procedural law approach, not only on the part of the Court but also in legal literature, entails intrinsic difficulties in drawing the lines among the three elements on the basis of which the research will be conducted. In these circumstances, some occasional overlaps will be unavoidable. After the issues presented in this introductory section have been fully discussed, the possibilities of discovering whether a complete and autonomous system of interim judicial protection of Community law rights before national courts is emerging will hopefully be much greater. 2. The right to obtain interim relief before national courts 2.1 Direct, immediate and effective judicial protection The importance attributed to the role of individuals in the European integration process led