The obligation of national Courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union

• Authors: Valentin Paul Neamt
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The present paper presents the obligation that courts in the member states of the European Union have to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a focus on courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law. The paper starts by presenting the applicable framework regarding the preliminary reference procedure, then focuses on analyzing the exceptions to national court’s duty under article 267 TFEU, with a focus on the direction in which the case law is heading based on the most recent judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, finally presenting the author’s conclusions and observation on the subject.

Keywords

EN

art. 267 TFEU; obligation to refer

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Journal of Legal Studies
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 31
• Pages: 24-36

Dates

published

2016-06-01

received

2015-11-01

accepted

2016-01-01

online

2016-05-12

Contributors

author

Valentin Paul Neamt

• „Vasile Goldis” Western University of Arad

References

• 1. Damian Chalmers, Gareth Davies, Giorgio Monti - European Union Law: Cases and Materials 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010;
• 2. Paul Craig, Grainne de Burca - EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 5th Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011;
• 3. Statistics concerning judicial activity in 2014, available at , last accessed on the 30th of November 2015.
• Judgments of the Courte of Justice of the European Union:
• 4. Case 283/81 - Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health. [1082], ECR 03415;
• 5. Joined Cases 28 to 30/62 – Da Costa v Nederlandse Belastingadministratie [1963] ECR 31;
• 6. Case C-224/01 - Gerhard Kobler v Republic of Austria [2003], ECR 2003 I-10239;
• 7. Case C-46/93 - Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029;
• 8. C-495/03 - Intermodal Transports BV v Staatssecretaris van Financien [2005], ECR I-08151;
• 9. Joined Cases C-72/14 and C-197/14 – X v Joined Cases C-72/14 and C-197/14 and T.A. Van Dijk v Staatssecretaris van Financien, not yet reported.
• 10. Case C-160/14 - João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Estado portugues, not yet reported.
• Advocate-General’s opinions:
• 11. Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 12 April 2005 in Case C-495/03 - Intermodal Transports BV v Staatssecretaris van Financien;
• 12. Opinion of Advocate General Wahl delivered on 13 May 2015 - Joined Cases C - 72/14 and C-197/14 X.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/jles-2016-0003