1 / 26

Preliminary Ruling (Ön-Karar Davası)

Preliminary Ruling (Ön-Karar Davası). Various Cases Before the ECJ:. 1- Infringement procedure before ECJ against a member state (by another MS or by Commission) [ ihlal davası ] 226-227 and 228 for compensation 2- Action for Annulment [ iptal davası ] 230-231

toril
Download Presentation

Preliminary Ruling (Ön-Karar Davası)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Preliminary Ruling (Ön-Karar Davası)

  2. Various Cases Before the ECJ: 1- Infringement procedure before ECJ against a member state (by another MS or by Commission) [ihlal davası] 226-227 and 228 for compensation 2- Action for Annulment [iptal davası] 230-231 3- Cases for failure to act (for EU institutions) [ihmal davası] 232 4- Compensation cases for non-contractual liabilities [akit-dışı sorumluluk çerçevesinde tazminat davası] 235 5- preliminary rulings (ön karar davası) 6- Cases related to disputes between the Community and its servants [Personel Davaları] 7- Expanded Jurisdiction of the ECJ (ATAD’ın Genişletilmiş Yargı Yetkisi)

  3. Preliminary RulingArticle 234 EC • “The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: • (a) the interpretation of this Treaty; • (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community and of the ECB; • (c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council, where thosestatutes so provide.

  4. Article 234 EC • Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court ortribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to givejudgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon • Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member Stateagainst whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shallbring the matter before the Court of Justice.”

  5. Jurisdiction to give Preliminary ruling • In addition to the ECJCFI can provide preliminary ruling in some limited casesbut if there is a risk for the unity or consistency of EC lawpreliminary ruling given by CFI may be subject to review by the ECJ. • Application for preliminary rulings cannot be done by individualsonly the national courts can refer a case

  6. Process briefly • Who can invoke? • Who can refer? • Questions... • Pending case • Answers • Binding interpretation • May refer again?

  7. Which provisions can be referred? • “interpretation of this Treaty”: • This includes all treaties (founding + amending etc.) • ECJ does not give a judgment on the validity of national lawIt interprets the Treaty • But the consequence of such an interpretation may be that a provision of national law is incompatible with EC law.

  8. Which provisions can be referred? • “the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community and of the ECB” • Validity of a Community decision or regulation • includes non-binding “acts” such as recommendations

  9. Which national court can refer? • In Art. 234 “court or tribunal of a member state” is not clearit is for the ECJ to decide whether a national body is court or tribunal • The ECJ applies different criteria: • Whether established by law or not • Whether its jurisdiction is compulsory or not • Whether independent or not

  10. Which national court can refer? • Arbitral courts or tribunals (arbitration)? • Constitutional courts of member states? • Complicated situation in UKCourt of Appeal/House of Lordsappeal if leave is granted. • Even some administrative councils in France on disciplinary penalties for civil servants were accepted as capable to refer • If a national rule prevents the national court from raising a matter of EC law of its own motionaccording to the ECJ this law is contrary to EC law

  11. Failure to refer • What if the national court fails to refer? • This will be a type of failure to comply with the EU law • As explained beforeexecutive, legislative and judiciary may cause the state responsibility • In such cases the Commission commences the process and then urges the member state and issues the reasoned opinion...

  12. Conditions for the referral • There are two main conditions for an issue not to be referred to the ECJ: • 1- If that part of the EU law is so clear and there is no need to ask the interpretation (“acte clair”) • 2- If there is an established case-law (jurisprudence) of the ECJ on the same matter (a previous preliminary ruling) which makes it so obvious for the court • But national court is still able to refer the matter to the ECJ in formal terms • If the above conditions existeven a national court which is normally obligated to refer can be released from this obligation: ExpItalian Court of Cassation

  13. Case 283/81 CILFIT (1982) • “Therefore the mere fact that a party contends that the dispute gives rise to a question concerning the interpretation of Community law does not mean that the court or tribunal concerned is compelled to consider that a question has been raised within the meaning of Article 177. On the other hand, a national court or tribunal may, in an appropriate case, refer a matter to the Court of Justice of its own motion.”

  14. Case 283/81 CILFIT (1982) • “...Accordingly, those courts or tribunals are not obliged to refer to the Court of Justice a question concerning the interpretation of Community law raised before them if that question is not relevant, that is to say, if the answer to that question, regardless of what it may be, can in no way affect the outcome of the case.” • “If, however, those courts or tribunals consider that recourse to Community law is necessary to enable them to decide a case, Article 177 imposes an obligation on them to refer to the Court of Justice any question of interpretation which may arise.”

  15. Case 283/81 CILFIT (1982) • “However, it must not be forgotten that in all such circumstances national courts and tribunals, including those referred to in the third paragraph of Article 177, remain entirely at liberty to bring a matter before the Court of Justice if they consider it appropriate to do so.” • Ultimate authority is vested to the national court but this may cause responsibility of that state.

  16. ‘Acte Clair’ Doctrine • National court may feel thatthe meaning is so clear that no reference to the ECJ is needed • Conditions in which it is legitimate for a national court to refuse to refer were described by the ECJ in its CILFIT Case

  17. Case 283/81 CILFIT (1982) • “Finally, the correct application of Community law may be so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to the manner in which the question raised is to be resolved. Before it comes to the conclusion that such is the case, the national court or tribunal must be convinced that the matter is equally obvious to the courts of the other Member States and to the Court of Justice. Only if those conditions are satisfied, may the national court or tribunal refrain from submitting the question to the Court of Justice and take upon itself the responsibility for resolving it.”

  18. Case 283/81 CILFIT (1982) • “... the third paragraph of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is required, where a question of Community law is raised before it, to comply with its obligation to bring the matter before the Court of Justice, unless it has established that the question raised is irrelevant or that the Community provision in question has already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct application of Community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. The existence of such a possibility must be assessed in the light of the specific characteristics of Community law, the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the Community.”

  19. Conditions not to refer • If: • 1- it has established that the question raised is irrelevant or; • 2- that the Community provision in question has already been interpreted by the Court or; • 3- that the correct application of Community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt.

  20. Types of cases where ECJ declines jurisdiction for preliminary ruling • 1- If the question has hypothetical nature • 2- If the question raised is not relevant to the resolution of the substantive action in the national court • 3- If the questions are not articulated clearly enough for the ECJ to be able to give any meaningful legal response • 4- If the facts are insufficiently clear for the ECJ to apply the relevant legal rules

  21. What is the power of the ECJ under preliminary ruling? • Art. 234 empowers the ECJ to interpret the Treatybut does not specifically authorize it to apply the Treaty to the facts of a particular case. • But it is very difficult to identify the distinction between “interpretation” and “application” • The Treaty supposes that the ECJ interprets and the national courts apply that interpretation so “division of authority”

  22. What is the power of the ECJ under preliminary ruling? • The dividing line between interpretation and application is very thin which causes problems • Many of the questions submitted to the ECJ are, by their nature, very detailed and may be answered only by a specific response • The more detailed the ruling given by the ECJ the less there is the national court to do in such cases the national court in a way executes an issue-specific judgment of the ECJ.

  23. Consequences of the preliminary ruling • No clear explanation in Treaties • For some writers preliminary rulings have “erga omneseffect”. • For some others they only have “inter partes effect”. • No clear answer from the ECJ so far, but consider the obligation of national courts to follow the previous interpretations made by the ECJ on the same matter...

  24. ORAMS-Preliminary Ruling •  The first question • Para. 32 “By its first question, the referring court asks essentially whether the suspension of the application of the acquis communautaire in the northern area, provided for by Article 1(1) of Protocol No 10, precludes the application of Regulation No 44/2001 to a judgment which is given by a Cypriot court sitting in the Government-controlled area, but concerns land situated in the northern area.”

  25. ORAMS-Preliminary Ruling • “37      It follows from a literal interpretation of Article 1(1) of Protocol No 10 that the suspension for which it provides is limited to the application of the acquis communautaire in the northern area. However, in the case in the main proceedings, the judgments concerned, the recognition of which is sought by Mr Apostolides, were given by a court sitting in the Government-controlled area.”

  26. ORAMS-Preliminary Ruling • “In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that the suspension of the application of the acquis communautaire in the northern area, provided for by Article 1(1) of Protocol No 10, does not preclude the application of Regulation No 44/2001 to a judgment which is given by a Cypriot court sitting in the Government-controlled area, but concerns land situated in the northern area.”

More Related