A new interpretation of art. 267 (3) TFEU. ECtHR 's role in finding the missing piece of the puzzle?

Mihaela Adriana Oprescu

Mihaela Adriana Oprescu Babes Bolyai University

Keywords: preliminary ruling procedure; refusal to refer; right to a fair trial; art. 267 TFEU; art. 6 (1) ECHR

Abstract

The provisions of article 267 TFEU provide a procedural framework in which the dialogue between the national and European courts on the interpretation, respectively on the interpretation and validity of European law is formalised. The starting point for the analysis is that the Luxembourg court does not act in this procedure as a reviewing court, since only national courts are competent to decide whether or not to make use of it. This study therefore aims to answer the following research questions: What are the remedies or sanctions for failure to use the preliminary ruling procedure, particularly in the case provided for in Article 267(3) TFEU, where referral is mandatory? What is the role of the ECtHR in the institutionalised procedural dialogue between Member State courts and the CJEU? Can the human rights protection system under the umbrella of the ECHR be considered as the missing puzzle piece for ensuring effective judicial dialogue grafted on the preliminary ruling procedure? Are the rules of the preliminary ruling procedure set by two actors, one from the EU structure (CJEU) and another from the Council of Europe’s sphere (ECtHR)?

References

Broberg, M. P. (2016). National Courts of Last Instance Failing to Make a Preliminary Reference: The (Possible) Consequences Flowing Therefrom, European Public Law, Issue 2, 22, p.243-256, Retrieved from https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/European+Public+Law/22.2/EURO2016016, accesed on 26 May 2024
Craig, P, De Búrca, G. (2017). Dreptul Uniunii Europene. Comentarii, jurisprudență și doctrină, 6th ed, București: Hamangiu
Fábián, G. (2018). Drept instituțional al Uniunii Europene 2th ed., Bucharest: Hamangiu
Foster, N. (2016). EU Law, 5th ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lacchi, C. (2015). The ECrtHR’s Interference in the Dialogue between National Courts and the Court of Justice of the EU: Implications for the Preliminary Reference Procedure. Review of European Administrative Law, Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp. 95-125
Lenaerts, K., Maselis, I., Gutman, K. (2014). EU Procedural Law, 2th ed, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ferraro, F. (2015). The consequences of the breach of the duty to make reference to ECJ for a preliminary ruling. Il diritto dell'Unione Europea.,Vol.20, no.3, pp.589-622
Kornezov, A. (2016). The new format of the acte clair doctrine and its consequences. Common Market Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 5, pp. 1317-1342
Krommendijk, J. (2017). 'Open Sesame!': Improving Access to the ECJ by Obliging National Courts to Reason Their Refusals to Refer. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2871851, accesed on 26 May 2024
Krommendijk, J. (2020). Tell me more, tell me more: the obligation for national courts to reason their refusals to refer to the CJEU in Sanofi Pasteur. Retrieved from https://strasbourgobservers.com/2020/02/20/tell-me-more-tell-me-more-the-obligation-for-national-courts-to-reason-their-refusals-to-refer-to-the-cjeu-in-sanofi-pasteur/, accesed on 26 May 2024
Van Raepenbusch, S. (2014). Drept instituțional al Uniunii Europene, Bucharest: Rosetti International,
Schütze, R. (2015). European Union Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valutytė, R. (2012). State Liability for the Infringement of the Obligation to Refer for a Preliminary Ruling under the European Convention on Human Rights, Jurisprudencija, Vol. 19, 2012, pp. 7-20
Case-law
Case C-99/00, Criminal Proceedings vs. Kenny Roland Lyckeskog,- Lyckeskog, Judgment of 4 june 2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:329;
Case C-6/64, Flaminio Costa vs. E.N.E.L. (Ente nazionale energia elettrica, impresa già della Edison Volta), Judgment of 15 July 1964, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66
Case 28-30/62, Da Costa en Schaake NV, Jacob Meijer NV, Hoechst-Holland NV vs. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, Judgment of 27 March 1963, ECLI:EU:C:1963:6
Case 283/82, Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA vs. Ministry of Health, Judgment of 6 October 1982, European Court Reports 1982-03415, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335
Case C‑160/14, João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and others vs. Estado português, Judgment of 9 September 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:565;
Case C‑379/15, Association France Nature Environnement vs. Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie, Judgment of 28 July 2016, ECLI: EU:C:2016:603, point 50.
Joint cases C-46/93 și C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur SA vs. Bundesrepublik Deutschland and The Queen vs. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd & alții, Judgment of 5 March 1996, ECLI:EU:C:1996:79;
Case C-302/97, Klaus Konle vs. Republik Österreich, Judgment of the Court of 1 June 1999, European Court Reports 1999 I-03099, ECLI:EU:C:1999:271;
Case C-424/97, Salomone Haim vs. Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein, Judgment of 4 July 2000, ECLI:EU:C:2000:357.
Case C-416/17, Commission vs. France, Judgment of 4 October 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:811
Case C-129/00, Commission of the European Communities vs. Italian Republic, Judgment of 9 December 2003, European Court Reports 2003 I-14637, ECLI:EU:C:2003:656
Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others vs. Italian Republic, Judgement of 19 November 199, European Court Reports 1991 I-05357, ECLI:EU:C:1991:428
Case C-224/01, Gerhard Köbler vs. Republik Österreich, Judgment of 30 September 2003, European Court Reports 2003 I-10239, ECLI:EU:C:2003:513
CtEDO, Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek vs. Belgium, Judgement of 20 September 2011;
CtEDO, Vergauwen and Others vs. Belgium, Judgement of 10 April 2012;
CtEDO, Baydar vs. the Netherlands, Judgement of 24 April 2018;
CtEDO, Harisch vs. Germany, Judgement of 11 April 2019;
CtEDO, Sanofi Pasteur vs. France, Judgement of 13 February 2020.
CtEDO, Georgiou vs. Greece, Hotărârea din 14 martie 2023.
CtEDO, Dhahbi vs. Italy, Judgement of 8 April 2014
CtEDO, Baydar vs. the Netherlands, Judgement of 24 April 2018,
CtEDO, Bio Farmland Betriebs S.R.L. vs. Romania, Judgement of 12 July 2021