The right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights obligates the Member States of the European Union to provide effective remedies for the protection of individuals’ rights. Within this framework, Mem- ber States must offer access to effective interim measures when national courts rule on matters of EU law. Due to varying national regulations and lack of clear EU guidance, there is no consensus on how interim measures should be inter- preted and applied in order to fulfill the individuals' rights to effective remedies. In this context, the thesis aims to analyze the application of interim measures in the Swedish case NJA 2021 s. 147 in order to ensure that Sweden meets its re- quirements under EU law and to safeguard effective protection of individuals' rights.  The Swedish EU case C-432/05 Unibet (London) Ltd och Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern is a prominent case concerning interim measures and the right to an effective remedy. The case stipulates that when an individual challenges a national regulation’s compliance with the EU law, interim measures must be available, if needed, in order to protect invoked EU rights. The Swedish Supreme Court ruled that interim measures were not necessary in this specific case because the claim was not going to result in an enforceable judgment and therefore there were no EU rights in need of protection.  Now, 15 years later, a comparable question has come before the Swedish Su- preme Court in the case NJA 2021 s. 147. While bearing many similarities to the Unibet case, the key difference is that it is based on an enforceable judgment. However, the Supreme Court did not follow the argumentation line of Unibet, but decided to dismiss the application because it was considered to be abstract judicial review, which is not allowed according to Swedish law.  This thesis concludes that the Swedish Supreme Court likely breached EU law as it did not fulfill the obligations that follow from the right to effective remedies when applying the rules on interim measures in the case NJA 2021 s. 147. This conclusion is based on the finding that the Court failed to properly assess EU law in its judgment and limited itself to national law only, both in allowing interim measures and evaluating its necessity. This thesis argues that interim measures might have been allowed and necessary from an EU law perspective, hence the Court’s ruling limited the individual in exercising their EU rights.