Requests for preliminary rulings

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Correct Application

As a court common to the Contracting Member States and as part of their judicial system, the Court shall cooperate with the Court of Justice of the European Union to ensure the correct application and uniform interpretation of Union law, as any national court, in accordance with Article 267 TFEU in particular. Decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union shall be binding on the Court.

3. Preliminary rulings: Article 267 TFEU

2020 ◽  
pp. 47-64
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice

This chapter discusses Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 267 TFEU (ex Article 234 EC) gives the Court of Justice jurisdiction to deliver preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of EU law. The primary purpose of Article 267 is to ensure that EU law has the same meaning and effect in all the Member States. Where it considers a decision on a question of EU law is necessary to enable it to give judgment, any court may refer that question to the Court of Justice (the discretion to refer). Where a question of EU law is raised before a national court of last resort, that court must refer it to the Court of Justice (the obligation to refer).

Sources of law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfried Tilmann
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Judicial Systems

Union law is mentioned in the first position in lit a of para 1. When is the UPC required to apply Union law? The UPC was established by the UPCA which is a piece of international law and is not part of Union law. That makes the UPC an international court. However, the Member States established it—at the level of international law—as a court common to them which, pursuant to Arts 1(2) and 21 UPCA, is part of their respective national judicial systems. As part of the judicial system (Art 21 UPCA) of the CMSs—by an order under international law—and by reason of an express provision in Art 20 UPCA, the Court fulfils the obligation of the CMSs to apply Union law. Since the Court is a ‘court common to a number of Member States’, ‘it is situated within the judicial system of the European Union’, which is why ‘its decisions’ are subject to ‘mechanisms capable of ensuring the full effectiveness of Union law’. This wording—used in Opinion C-1/09 of the Court of Justice with reference to the Benelux Court of Justice—is also appropriate with reference to the UPC. Although it is integrated into the judicial systems of the Member States in a different way compared with the Benelux Court of Justice, it is a ‘court common to the Member States’, and it is only based on that connecting factor that the Benelux Court of Justice is ‘situated within the judicial system of the European Union’. The ‘mechanisms capable’ are expressly confirmed in Arts 21–23 UPCA.

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.

3. Preliminary rulings: Article 267 TFEU

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice

This chapter discusses Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 267 TFEU (ex Article 234 EC) gives the Court of Justice jurisdiction to deliver preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of EU law. The primary purpose of Article 267 is to ensure that EU law has the same meaning and effect in all the Member States. Where it considers a decision on a question of EU law is necessary to enable it to give judgment, any court may refer that question to the Court of Justice (the discretion to refer). Where a question of EU law is raised before a national court of last resort, that court must refer it to the Court of Justice (the obligation to refer).

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

scholarly journals Castaño avoids a clash between the ECtHR and the CJEU, but erodes Soering. Thinking human rights transnationally

2020 ◽  
pp. 203228442097974
Author(s):  
Sibel Top ◽  
Paul De Hert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States

This article examines the changing balance established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between human rights filters to extradition and the obligation to cooperate and how this shift of rationale brought the Court closer to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in that respect. The article argues that the ECtHR initially adopted a position whereby it prioritised human rights concerns over extraditions, but that it later nuanced that approach by establishing, in some cases, an obligation to cooperate to ensure proper respect of human rights. This refinement of its position brought the ECtHR closer to the approach adopted by the CJEU that traditionally put the obligation to cooperate above human rights concerns. In recent years, however, the CJEU also backtracked to some extent from its uncompromising attitude on the obligation to cooperate, which enabled a convergence of the rationales of the two Courts. Although this alignment of the Courts was necessary to mitigate the conflicting obligations of European Union Member States towards both Courts, this article warns against the danger of making too many human rights concessions to cooperation in criminal matters.

Legal conflict between the EU and the republic of Poland regarding polish judicial reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.

The Google Ireland Case and the Legal Battle over Digital Taxes in the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-220
Author(s):  
Giulio Allevato ◽  
Fernando Pastor-Merchante
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Digital Economy ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Topical Issue ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Battle ◽  
The Way

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Google Ireland case turned on the compatibility with the rules on free movement of some of the administrative arrangements put in place by Hungary in order to administer its controversial advertisement tax (namely, the obligation to register and the penalties attached to the failure to comply with that obligation). The preliminary ruling offers some interesting insights on the way in which the Court assesses the compatibility with the freedom to provide services of national administrative arrangements aimed at ensuring the effective collection of taxes. This is a topical issue in the context of the recent efforts made by Member States to tax the digital economy more effectively.

OPINION 2/15 OF THE CJEU: DELINEATING THE SCOPE OF THE NEW EU COMPETENCE IN FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT

2018 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Rumiana Yotova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu

ON 16 May 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its Opinion 2/15 concerning the competence of the EU to conclude the Free Trade Agreement with Singapore (EUSFTA) (ECLI:EU:C:2017:376). The Opinion was requested by the Commission which argued, with the support of the European Parliament (EP), that the EU had exclusive competence to conclude the EUSFTA. The Council and 25 of the Member States countered that the EUSFTA should be concluded as a mixed agreement – that is, by the EU and each of its members – because some of its provisions fell under the shared competence of the organisation or the competence of the Member States alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document