14. Preliminary Rulings

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 515-559
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Direct Effect ◽  
National Court ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter focuses on Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which contains the preliminary ruling procedure. Article 267 has been of seminal importance for the development of EU law. It is through preliminary rulings that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has developed concepts such as direct effect and supremacy. Individuals assert in national courts that the Member State has broken a Union provision, which gives them rights that they can enforce in their national courts. The national court seeks a ruling from the ECJ whether the particular EU provision has direct effect, and the ECJ is thereby able to develop the concept. Article 267 has been the mechanism through which national courts and the ECJ have engaged in a discourse on the appropriate reach of EU law when it has come into conflict with national legal norms. The UK version contains a further section analysing the extent to which the preliminary reference system is relevant in relation to the UK post-Brexit.

14. Preliminary Rulings

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 496-539
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Direct Effect ◽  
National Court ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter focuses on Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which contains the preliminary ruling procedure. Article 267 has been of seminal importance for the development of EU law. It is through preliminary rulings that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has developed concepts such as direct effect and supremacy. Individuals assert in national courts that the Member State has broken a Union provision, which gives them rights that they can enforce in their national courts. The national court seeks a ruling from the ECJ whether the particular EU provision has direct effect, and the ECJ is thereby able to develop the concept. Article 267 has been the mechanism through which national courts and the ECJ have engaged in a discourse on the appropriate reach of EU law when it has come into conflict with national legal norms. The UK version contains a further section analysing the extent to which the preliminary reference system is relevant in relation to the UK post-Brexit.

13. Preliminary Rulings

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Direct Effect ◽  
National Court ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter focuses on Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which contains the preliminary ruling procedure. Article 267 has been of seminal importance for the development of EU law. It is through preliminary rulings that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has developed concepts such as direct effect and supremacy. Individuals assert in national courts that the Member State has broken a Union provision, which gives them rights that they can enforce in their national courts. The national court seeks a ruling from the ECJ whether the particular EU provision has direct effect, and the ECJ is thereby able to develop the concept. Article 267 has been the mechanism through which national courts and the ECJ have engaged in a discourse on the appropriate reach of EU law when it has come into conflict with national legal norms.

6. The preliminary ruling (Article 267 TFEU)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This chapter examines the procedural law of the European Union (EU), focusing on Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It explains that Article 267 is the reference procedure by which courts in member states can endorse questions concerning EU law to the European Court of Justice (CoJ). Under this Article, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has the jurisdiction to provide preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies of the Union and on the interpretation of the Treaties.

10. The Relationship Between EU Law and National Law: Supremacy

EU Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 303-352
Author(s):  
Paul Craig ◽  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
Legal Order ◽  
Common Market ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter discusses the doctrine of supremacy of EU law, which was developed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) based on its conception of the ‘new legal order’. The ECJ ruled that the aim of creating a uniform common market between different states would be undermined if EU law could be made subordinate to national law of the various states. The validity of EU law can therefore, according to the ECJ, never be assessed by reference to national law. National courts are required to give immediate effect to EU law, of whatever rank, in cases that arise before them, and to ignore or to set aside any national law, of whatever rank, which could impede the application of EU law. Thus, according to the ECJ, any norm of EU law takes precedence over any provision of national law, including the national constitutions. This broad assertion of the supremacy of EU law has not however been accepted without qualification by national courts, and the chapter examines the nature of the qualifications that have been imposed by some national courts. The UK version contains a further section analysing the relevance of the supremacy of EU law in relation to the UK post-Brexit.

Die Durchbrechung der Rechtskraft nationaler Zivilgerichtsurteile zu Gunsten des unionsrechtlichen "effet utile"?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catharina Voß
Keyword(s):  
Public Procurement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Further Development ◽  
Additional Reason

This book examines allowing the legal force of national judgements to be overturned in favour of the priority law of the European Union, which has been relevant for both procedural practice and academic discourse since the ‘Klausner-Holz’ ruling by the European Court of Justice in 2015. In addition to an overview of the state of the current jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, the book also offers solutions to the effective enforcement of European priority law through an autonomous concept of the matter in dispute which is in line with EU law, the creation of an additional reason for restitution or a larger submission in practice by national courts. Judges, lawyers, academics and politicians who have to deal with the application or further development of national procedural law in connection with legal fields relevant to EU law, such as the EU’s state aid and public procurement law, antitrust law or competition law, will benefit enormously from reading this book.

scholarly journals References for a Preliminary Ruling to the European Union Court of Justice: The Substantive Criteria of Admissibility

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 131-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena A. Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Acceptability Criteria ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure as stipulated by Article 276 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union had a significant impact on the de-ve lop ment of EU law and became a collaborative tool as part of the dialogue bet-ween supranational and national judges.The mechanism of preliminary ruling enables to ensure a uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all member states and consti tutes an instrumental element for preserving the uniformity of the European legal system.When developing the mechanism of preliminary ruling at EU level one consi-dered constitutional & legal traditions of member states, however, for long periods, the EU was perceived as "exotic" one and its impact on the national law was often underesti mated. Initially there were no any clear concepts how the mechanism of preliminary ruling would work. The EU court encouraged national judges of member states to use this mechanism; however, gradually it started introducing certain acceptability criteria in respect of such requests.The practice of the EU Court was summarized in the updated Rules of Procedure of 25 September 2012. During the period from 2014 to 2018, the number of cases sub mitted for preliminary ruling procedure was increasingly growing. Consequently, natio nal courts had started using this procedure relatively intensively and the con so-li dation of acceptability criteria created no serious problems for them.The imposition by the EU Court of minimal requirements towards the substance of requests does not reduce their number, since the acknowledgement of a re quest as inadmissible does not prevent a national court from sending a repeated re quest. However, it contributes to the improvement of quality and efficiency of the pre li mi-nary ruling procedure. The establishment of the respective requirements is necessary to ensure that the EU Court could provide national courts with an interpretation of EU law useful for resolution of a specific dispute and ensure constructiveness of the dialogue.

Preliminary References

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten Broberg ◽  
Niels Fenger
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
National Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeal

A reference for a preliminary ruling is a request from the national court of a Member State to the Court of Justice of the European Union to give an authoritative interpretation of an EU act or a decision on the validity of such an act. In this situation, the Court of Justice does not function as a court of appeal that rules on the outcome of the main proceedings before the referring court: it makes judgment neither on the facts in the main proceedings nor on the interpretation and application of national law. Moreover, in principle it does not itself pronounce on the concrete application of EU law in the main proceedings before the referring court. Finally, while a preliminary ruling is normally given in the form of a judgment, the ruling is addressed to the referring court and not to the parties to the main proceedings. Only the referring court’s subsequent decision can be enforced against those parties. The preliminary reference procedure is therefore an expression of the interplay and allocation of tasks between national courts and the Court of Justice.

What Questions Can Be Referred?

2021 ◽  
pp. 89-140
Author(s):  
Morten Broberg ◽  
Niels Fenger
Keyword(s):  
Security Policy ◽  
National Court ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy

Chapter 4 examines which questions can be referred for a preliminary ruling. The European Court of Justice has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the Treaties, and on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies of the Union. It does not have jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation or validity of international law or national laws, and it is prevented from giving a binding ruling on the facts that are put before a national court. Chapter 4 explains the reference to ‘the Treaties’ as well as the meanings of ‘acts’, ‘institutions, bodies, offices or agencies’, and ‘validity’. This examination includes police and judicial cooperation, common foreign and security policy, the Euratom Treaty and the ECSC Treaty, and it includes preliminary references concerning international agreements. The chapter also examines the extent to which the Court of Justice can give its opinion on the facts or the content of national law in connection with a reference for a preliminary ruling or on questions that concern circumstances that arise before a Member State’s accession to the European Union or where the preliminary ruling is rendered after a Member State’s withdrawal from the Union (eg Brexit).

Arbitration cases and preliminary references to the European Court of Justice—an assessment of ‘the Danish Solution’

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-155
Author(s):  
Morten Broberg ◽  
Niels Fenger
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

Abstract When a case, that is pending before a national court in one of the Member States of the European Union, requires a decision on the interpretation or validity of an EU legal measure, the national court can seek a preliminary ruling on the matter from the European Court of Justice before deciding the main action. In its preliminary ruling, the European Court of Justice establishes authoritatively the interpretation or validity of the relevant EU legislation. When EU law plays a role in commercial arbitration it may be very useful for arbitration tribunals to have access to the preliminary reference procedure. However, according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, only ‘a court or tribunal of a Member State’ can make a preliminary reference and this notion does not include commercial arbitration tribunals. In order to give arbitration tribunals access to the preliminary reference procedure Denmark has introduced a scheme which allows them to ask the ordinary Danish courts to make preliminary references on behalf of the arbitration tribunal. This article explains the Danish scheme and considers to what extent it provides a useful model for other Member States.

Understanding ICSID Article 54

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A Bermann
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
State Practice

Abstract To the surprise of many, questions have recently arisen over the scope of inquiry, if any, that a national court may, consistent with Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, make in connection with the enforcement of an ICSID award. It has long been assumed in many, if not most, quarters that a national court is privileged to condition enforcement of an ICSID Convention award on a single simple requirement, viz. that the award be certified by the Secretary-General of ICSID. Until recently, doubts over whether that is so have been raised in a very small number of jurisdictions. But the Commission of the European Union has taken the view that an ICSID Convention award may be denied enforcement if it is contrary to a principle of “autonomy” of EU law and, based on its judgment in Achmea case in connection with non-ICSID awards, the European Court of Justice most likely takes the same view. This suggests that the European Union regards violation of EU public policy, more generally, as a defense to enforcement of an ICSID award. Based on text, object and purpose, legislative history, and predominant state practice, this position appears to run seriously afoul of the ICSID Convention. At the same time, some meaning must be given to the language in Article 54 according to which an ICSID award must be enforced by a national court “as if it were a final judgment of a court” of the enforcing State. The author finds that the understanding of Article 54 that best reflects all pertinent considerations is that it imposes on courts the modest requirement that they subject the enforcement of ICSID awards to no more restrictive or onerous procedures than they impose on the enforecement of national judgments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document