Contradictory ECJ judgments on the enforcement of final national decisions The principle of primacy versus the principle of national procedural autonomy

The judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ or Court) of 20 May 2021 in the case Purmerend was expected to have considerable influence on Dutch administrative law. In this case, the ECJ was asked to answer preliminary questions about a national procedural rule which entails that administrative decisions which have become final, but are contrary to EU law, can still be enforced because they are considered to be lawful in subsequent enforcement proceedings. The earlier, very comparable Ciola judgment of 1999 raised the expectation that the ECJ would find that this national rule is not in conformity with EU law. However, the Court ruled otherwise, and the expected impact on national (procedural) law seems to remain absent.

Why did these similar cases lead to different outcomes? The different approach of the ECJ in the judgments of Ciola and Purmerend could perhaps be explained by the difference between direct and indirect collisions between EU law and national law.