Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Legal Studies

2 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2392-7054
See all formats and pricing
More options …

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

Valentin Paul Neamt
Published Online: 2016-05-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jles-2016-0003

Abstract

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: art. 267 TFEU; obligation to refer

Bibliography

  • 1. Damian Chalmers, Gareth Davies, Giorgio Monti - European Union Law: Cases and Materials 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010;Google Scholar

  • 2. Paul Craig, Grainne de Burca - EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 5th Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011;Google Scholar

  • 3. Statistics concerning judicial activity in 2014, available at http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-03/cp150027en.pdf, last accessed on the 30th of November 2015.

  • Judgments of the Courte of Justice of the European Union:Google Scholar

  • 4. Case 283/81 - Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health. [1082], ECR 03415;Google Scholar

  • 5. Joined Cases 28 to 30/62 – Da Costa v Nederlandse Belastingadministratie [1963] ECR 31;Google Scholar

  • 6. Case C-224/01 - Gerhard Kobler v Republic of Austria [2003], ECR 2003 I-10239;Google Scholar

  • 7. Case C-46/93 - Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029;Google Scholar

  • 8. C-495/03 - Intermodal Transports BV v Staatssecretaris van Financien [2005], ECR I-08151;Google Scholar

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • 10. Case C-160/14 - João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Estado portugues, not yet reported.Google Scholar

  • Advocate-General’s opinions:Google Scholar

  • 11. Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 12 April 2005 in Case C-495/03 - Intermodal Transports BV v Staatssecretaris van Financien;Google Scholar

  • 12. Opinion of Advocate General Wahl delivered on 13 May 2015 - Joined Cases C - 72/14 and C-197/14 X.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-11-01

Accepted: 2016-01-01

Published Online: 2016-05-12

Published in Print: 2016-06-01


Citation Information: Journal of Legal Studies, ISSN (Online) 2392-7054, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jles-2016-0003.

Export Citation

© 2016 Valentin Paul Neamt, published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in