Lower Instance National Courts and Tribunals in Member States and Their Judicial Dialogue with the Court of Justice of the European Union

The vast majority of cases that are submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) through the preliminary reference procedure that is contained in Article 267 TFEU come from lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States. As a result, it is not always appellate courts, or higher instance national courts and tribunals, such as courts of final appeal, which make orders for reference. Judicial dialogue between national courts and the Court through this Article 267 TFEU procedure is notable for its particular quality of it being open to receiving orders for reference, for an interpretation of EU law from national courts and tribunals – of any instance – from first instance, to final instance. But can this judicial dialogue between lower instance national courts and tribunals and the Court be impeded by national courts’ more senior national Brethren, with appeals being allowed against orders for reference within national legal orders? The case law of the Court on such an issue has been progressive, in that it developed slowly over time, and the Court, by 2021, becoming increasingly assertive. As will be analysed in this article, the Court’s approach to the arising issue has clearly been an attempt to balance the interests of judicial dialogue on the one hand, and national rules on the other. Yet, with the Court’s broader case law tightening the understanding of who constitutes the European judiciary, and ensuring that all national courts and tribunals remain independent from executive interference in EU Member States, the article commends recent developments, but makes the further plea for an affirmative judgment of the Court to not permit, as a matter of EU law, appeals against orders for reference made by lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States, in the name of preserving judicial dialogue through the preliminary reference procedure.

Color ruler to confirm spectrophotometer results for nitro compound content in acidic wastewater from TNT processes

This study aimed to find an additional analytical reference procedure to verify the accuracy of single beam Spectrophotometer results that used to determine the concentration of nitro compound pollutants such as TNT, DNT, and MNT (Tri Nitro Toluene, Di Nitro toluene, and Mono Nitro Toluene respectively) in treated acidic wastewater generated from TNT manufacturing. This procedure was tested and confirmed to be a reference for a single-beam spectrophotometer. In this study 10 samples with known concentrations were taken and prepared for colorimetric analysis, the concentrations gradient from 10mg/L up to 60mg/L to make a ruler with gradient color, this ruler was suitable for high concentration samples but to specify the low concentration samples the procedure depended on adding a known concentration to the unknown concentration sample then this added concentration transferred the samples from unspecified color to specified color on the ruler consisted by known concentration mentioned above, the concentration of unknown concentration samples were specified by taking the concentration corresponding to the ruler color a subtracting the value of added concentration and the value of the remains was sample concentration. This study proved the reliability of this procedure to confirm single-beam spectrophotometer results, determining low concentration value of unknown concentration sample of TNT acidic wastewater, and then it can be used as a substituent of spectrophotometer in the event of malfunctions.

10. Judicial Powers I

This chapter highlights the ‘centralized’ powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It begins with an analysis of the Court's annulment power. The power of judicial review is the founding pillar of a Union ‘based on the rule of law’. The chapter then moves to the remedial power of the European Court, and the question of when the Union legislative or executive branches will be liable to pay damages for an illegal action. It also investigates the Court's power to adjudicate disputes between parties. In addition to a number of direct actions (direct actions start directly in the European Court), the EU Treaties also envisage an indirect action starting in the national courts: the preliminary reference procedure. This procedure is the central pillar of the Union's cooperative federalism for it combines the central interpretation of Union law by the Court of Justice with the decentralized application of European law by the national courts.

10. Judicial Powers I

This chapter highlights the ‘centralized’ powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It begins with an analysis of the Court’s annulment power. The power of judicial review is the founding pillar of a Union ‘based on the rule of law’. The chapter then moves to the remedial power of the European Court, and the question of when the Union legislative or executive branches will be liable to pay damages for an illegal action. It also investigates the Court’s power to adjudicate disputes between parties. In addition to a number of direct actions (direct actions start directly in the European Court), the EU Treaties also envisage an indirect action starting in the national courts: the preliminary reference procedure. This procedure is the central pillar of the Union’s cooperative federalism for it combines the central interpretation of Union law by the Court of Justice with the decentralized application of European law by the national courts.

When Ought a Reference for a Preliminary Ruling be Made?

Chapter 7 concerns the situation where the national court has discretion in its decision as to whether or not it should refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice. It analyses (1) the different criteria that form the basis for the national court’s discretionary decision, (2) to what extent EU law interferes with that discretion, and (3) at what time in the proceedings it is best to make a preliminary reference. The chapter first identifies the different criteria that in general form the basis for the national court’s decision as to whether or not it should make use of the preliminary reference procedure. It then deals with the particular situation where a similar question is already pending before the Court of Justice or where the national court has a cluster of parallel cases before it and must decide whether to make a preliminary reference in all cases or only in one or a few test cases. Next, it discusses to what extent a national court not sitting as a court of last instance should refrain from posing a preliminary question because such a question could also be posed during a possible appeal procedure. Finally, chapter 7 examines at what stage of the proceedings it is most appropriate to refer a preliminary question and discusses to what extent points of fact and national law ought to be clarified before it is decided whether to make use of the preliminary procedure.

Broberg and Fenger on Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice

This fully updated and revised 3rd edition of Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice provides a meticulous and yet easily accessible examination of all aspects of the preliminary reference procedure. A reference for a preliminary ruling is a request from a national court of an EU Member State to the European Court of Justice to give an authoritative interpretation on an EU act or a decision on the validity of such an act. Preliminary rulings have played a pivotal role in the development of the European Union. The European Union’s preliminary reference procedure has been copied by several other international organisations – including not least the European Economic Area (EEA) and the EFTA Court. Since the second edition, the European Court of Justice has rendered a considerable number of rulings which have led to important changes to the book. This is particularly reflected in the treatment of the Court’s acte clair doctrine, of preliminary references from administrative appeal boards and arbitration tribunals and of preliminary references regarding international agreements. And it is reflected in the interaction between the preliminary reference procedure and the European Convention on Human Rights as well as in a more general revision of the text bringing it up to date by taking into account new case law and new legal writings. With backgrounds as both practitioners and academics the two authors have produced a book that caters for the needs of both practitioners and academics.

References for Preliminary Rulings

Chapter 1 gives an account of the development of the preliminary ruling procedure and outlines the different types of preliminary references in the EU system. It gives an account of the broadly similar reference procedure laid down in the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement where the EFTA Court admits preliminary references from the EFTA States, and it provides an account of other ways of obtaining guidance on interpretation of EU law, namely questions to the Commission and the European Ombudsman. Chapter 1 ends with a discussion of what future changes one might envisage for the preliminary reference procedure.

Das Karlsruher PSPP-Urteil – ein Corona-Jahr danach

This article scrutinizes the impact of the widely criticized PSPP-judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on the Union´s legal order. It shows that the European Commission´s opening of an infringement procedure was inevitable due to the FCC´s disregard of the rules of the preliminary reference procedure, denies the necessity of a modification of the Union´s judicial architecture and develops recommendations for the future loyal cooperation between the FCC and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in handling such disputes.

The Dialogue between the Supreme Administrative Court and the Constitutional Tribunal in the Preliminary Reference Procedure

The purpose of the article is to analyze how the Supreme Administrative Court implements the right of this court to apply to the Constitutional Tribunal, enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, with a request to examine the constitutionality of the legal act applicable in a particular case. The emergence of this investigation is marked by a noticeable decrease in the number of requests submitted by administrative courts to investigate the constitutionality of a legal act, which encourages the investigation of the causes of this phenomenon. The prior application of the court for the constitutionality of a legal act encourages the analysis of a specific cooperation dialogue between the requesting court and the Constitutional Tribunal.