<p>In the autumn of 2007, the Swedish Chancellor of Justice rejected a claim for damages by an individual against the Swedish state on the grounds that the breach was not to be regarded as sufficiently serious. The claim for damages was based on the Swedish custom authority’s confiscation of alcoholic beverages imported to Sweden by individuals, an act that the ECJ had found contrary to Community law.</p><p>This study is evaluating the compatibility of the Chancellor of Justice´s decision with Community law. An analysis of the guidelines given by the ECJ concerning state liability in general, and the sufficiently serious criterion in particular, are also presented in order to make this evaluation. This analysis illustrates that there are some conditions which are crucial when a national court is to make the assessment whether a breach is considered sufficiently serious to warrant restitution to an individual. Most importantly, the clarity of the infringed Community provision and the margin of discretion awarded to the Member State when committing the breach are factors that, according to the ECJ, are decisive when making this assessment.</p><p>The Swedish Chancellor of Justice´s decision to deny the claim for damages is, when comparing it to the guidelines given by the ECJ, definitely questionable.</p>

In the autumn of 2007, the Swedish Chancellor of Justice rejected a claim for damages by an individual against the Swedish state on the grounds that the breach was not to be regarded as sufficiently serious. The claim for damages was based on the Swedish custom authority’s confiscation of alcoholic beverages imported to Sweden by individuals, an act that the ECJ had found contrary to Community law. This study is evaluating the compatibility of the Chancellor of Justice´s decision with Community law. An analysis of the guidelines given by the ECJ concerning state liability in general, and the sufficiently serious criterion in particular, are also presented in order to make this evaluation. This analysis illustrates that there are some conditions which are crucial when a national court is to make the assessment whether a breach is considered sufficiently serious to warrant restitution to an individual. Most importantly, the clarity of the infringed Community provision and the margin of discretion awarded to the Member State when committing the breach are factors that, according to the ECJ, are decisive when making this assessment. The Swedish Chancellor of Justice´s decision to deny the claim for damages is, when comparing it to the guidelines given by the ECJ, definitely questionable.

v anglickém jazyce - English abstract Protection of Right to Fair Trial in Relation to Preliminary Ruling Proceedings Right to fair trial is one of fundamental human rights, which enables individuals to effectively invoke their rights and freedoms before a lawful, impartial and independent court. In Europe, the protection of this right is guaranteed at a multi-layer level, whose layers interact: first layer is formed by constitutional orders of individual States, second layer by institutions of European Union, in particular the Court of Justice of the European Union, and a third one, that of the European Court for Human Rights. In the European Union, the Treaties have introduced the mechanism of preliminary ruling with the aim of preserving unity within the Union and of ensuring coherent interpretation and application of European law by the courts of the Member States. Preliminary ruling proceedings ensure effective cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Art. 267 TFEU provides for an obligation to request a preliminary ruling for national courts of last instance (if none of the CILFIT case law conditions is met). Breach of this obligation may entail violation of right to fair trial at all three layers of human rights protection in Europe. Each European...