From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

Marshall v Southhampton and South West Area Health Authority No. 2 (1993)
Court	ECJ,
Location
Argued
Decided
Docket No.
Case name	Marshall v Southhampton
Original Document
Judge

C-271/91. Following her victory in marshall i (1986), Ms Marshall challenged the adequacy of the maximum compensation she was payable under UK law. She also asked for interest to be paid on top of the compensation. The ECJ held that the amount of compensation was not adequate to ensure the effectiveness of the EC non-discrimination law, and also that interest was payable.

Note that the ECJ has changed its position on overseeing the form and amount of remedies available to victims of breaches of EC law: from refusing to rule on whether compensation or interest was payable (Rewe-Zentralfinanz, 1976), to ruling that compensation was payable (Von Colson (1984)) but not stipuating the amount, to this case, in which it was prepared to rule on amount and interest. Note the gradual and incremental increase in the ECJ's willingness to oversee judicial remedies.

However, a retreat from the interventionist approach of the ECJ is evident in R v secretary of state for social security ex parte sutton (1997), and later cases have adopted a more balanced approach.