Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich (C-224/01)
Judgment
First and second questions
Reply by the Court
Principle of State liability
40

Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich (C-224/01)

Judgment of 30 Sept 2003law://eu/cjeu/2001/c-224-01/para_40@2026-11-10

40It follows that the principle of res judicata does not preclude recognition of the principle of State liability for the decision of a court adjudicating at last instance.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Full Court
Case: C-224/01 · ECLI:EU:C:2003:513
Decided: 30 Sept 2003
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Applicant: Gerhard Köbler
Defendant: Republik Österreich
Rapporteur: C.W.A. Timmermans(Presidents of Chambers)
Advocate General: P. Léger
Bench: 14 judges
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, C.W.A. Timmermans(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, A. Rosas
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62001CJ0224

Topics

Freedom of movement for workers Principles of Union law

History · 1 version

30 Sept 2003Reading

Connections

Interprets 2: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community
Interpreted by the courts in 2: Hochtief Solutions AG Magyarországi Fióktelepe v Fővárosi Törvényszék (C-620/17); Friedrich G. Barth v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung (C-542/08)
Cited by 18: Asociaţia 'Forumul Judecătorilor din România' and Others v Inspecţia Judiciară and Others (C-83/19, C-127/19, C-195/19, C-291/19, C-355/19, C-397/19); Randstad Italia SpA v Umana SpA and Others (C-497/20); FMS and Others v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság and Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság (C-924/19 PPU, C-925/19 PPU); UX v Governo della Repubblica italiana (C-658/18)2 provisions; João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Estado português (C-293/24)2 provisions; BX v Statul Român – Ministerul Finanţelor Publice and Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (C-163/24); 'Vivacom Bulgaria' EAD v Varhoven administrativen sad and Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (C-369/23); Right to Know CLG v An Taoiseach (C-84/22)2 provisions; BM and NP v Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca - MIUR (C-132/22); Nizar Assaad v Council of the European Union (T-426/21); IG v Varhoven administrativen sad (C-289/21); F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (C-261/21)2 provisions; European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (C-278/20)2 provisions; Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v BV (C-129/19); WN v Land Niedersachsen (C-710/18)3 provisions; Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze (C-34/19); Criminal proceedings against Nikolay Boykov Kolev and Others (C-704/18); Oana Mădălina Călin v Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti – Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Dâmboviţa and Others (C-676/17)
Cites 24: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions; Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman (C-415/93); Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v Italian Republic (C-6/90); Peterbroeck, Van Campenhout & Cie SCS v Belgian State (C-312/93); Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others (C-46/93, C-48/93); Klaus Konle v Republik Österreich (C-302/97); Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland (C-33/76); Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v Benetton International NV (C-126/97); Erich Dillenkofer, Christian Erdmann, Hans-Jürgen Schulte, Anke Heuer, Werner, Ursula and Trosten Knor v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94, C-190/94); Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (C-55/94); Dieter Kraus v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-19/92); Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst v Republik Österreich (C-195/98); Salomone Haim v Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein (C-424/97); Denkavit International BV, VITIC Amsterdam BV and Voormeer BV v Bundesamt für Finanzen (C-283/94, C-291/94, C-292/94); Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community; Kalliope Schöning-Kougebetopoulou v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (C-15/96); SEIM - Sociedade de Exportação e Importação de Materiais Ldª v Subdirector-Geral das Alfândegas (C-446/93); Comet BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen (C-45/76); Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (C-187/96); The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd (C-5/94); Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health (C-283/81); Eurico Italia Srl, Viazzo Srl and F & P SpA v Ente Nazionale Risi (C-332/92, C-333/92, C-335/92); The Queen v H. M. Treasury, ex parte British Telecommunications plc (C-392/93); Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH (C-54/96)