Even where a provision of Community law is not capable of direct effect, this does not mean that it is without relevance before a national court. In Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen case 14/83 the ECJ held that, because Member States were obliged to take all appropriate measures to fulfil their Treaty obligations, the national courts were obliged, where possible, to interpret national law in accordance with Community law. This will only be possible where national law is silent or ambiguous on a particular point. In Marleasing case C–106/89 it was held that this obligation applied whether the national law in question was adopted before or after the EC legislation, and was not restricted to national legislation adopted with a view to implementation of the relevant EC provision. In Arcaro the ECJ pointed out that sympathetic interpretation cannot result in the imposition upon an individual of an EC obligation which has not been correctly transposed, especially where this involves criminal liability. The Advocate-General stated, moreover, that where the national law is clear, the rule of interpretation ‘cannot be used contrary to its wording’.