Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    5.-Preliminary Reference Precedent 2023

    Uploaded by

    Demmy Jimoh Ibrahim
    1) The document examines the purpose, scope, and procedures around preliminary references to the Court of Justice of the European Union according to Article 267 TFEU. 2) It discusses when national courts may refuse a preliminary reference, such as when the question of EU law is irrelevant, has already been interpreted by the CJEU, or the correct application of EU law is obvious. 3) The development of precedent through previous CJEU rulings is also examined, with national courts expected to follow clear established case law in similar cases without needing to make a reference.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    5.-Preliminary Reference Precedent 2023

    Uploaded by

    Demmy Jimoh Ibrahim
    2 views5 pages
    1) The document examines the purpose, scope, and procedures around preliminary references to the Court of Justice of the European Union according to Article 267 TFEU. 2) It discusses when national courts may refuse a preliminary reference, such as when the question of EU law is irrelevant, has already been interpreted by the CJEU, or the correct application of EU law is obvious. 3) The development of precedent through previous CJEU rulings is also examined, with national courts expected to follow clear established case law in similar cases without needing to make a reference.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The document examines the purpose, scope, and procedures around preliminary references to the Court of Justice of the European Union according to Article 267 TFEU. 2) It discusses when national courts may refuse a preliminary reference, such as when the question of EU law is irrelevant, has already been interpreted by the CJEU, or the correct application of EU law is obvious. 3) The development of precedent through previous CJEU rulings is also examined, with national courts expected to follow clear established case law in similar cases without needing to make a reference.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    2 views5 pages

    5.-Preliminary Reference Precedent 2023

    Uploaded by

    Demmy Jimoh Ibrahim
    1) The document examines the purpose, scope, and procedures around preliminary references to the Court of Justice of the European Union according to Article 267 TFEU. 2) It discusses when national courts may refuse a preliminary reference, such as when the question of EU law is irrelevant, has already been interpreted by the CJEU, or the correct application of EU law is obvious. 3) The development of precedent through previous CJEU rulings is also examined, with national courts expected to follow clear established case law in similar cases without needing to make a reference.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    1

    Aims

    To examine the The purpose and To examine the To understand To examine the
    scope of PR binding effect of role of national the admissibility development of
    PR courts of questions; to precedence i.e.
    evaluate the doctrine of acte
    difference clair.
    between those
    courts or
    tribunals which
    ‘may’ seek a PR
    and those that
    ‘shall’ do so.
    9.- The development
    of Precedent
    ‘The questions of interpretation posed in this
    case are identical with those settled in [Case
    26/62, van Gend en Loos] and no new factor
    has been presented to the Court. In these
    circumstances the [national court] must be
    referred to the previous judgment...’ (Da
    Costa)

    NOTE:
    Strengthen the general principle of legal
    certainty.
    Further elaborated in other cases – see
    common phrase “as the court has
    consistently held...” + “In accordance
    with settled case-law...”
    BUT see“...contrary to what has
    previously been decided...” (Keck).

    2
    3

    “courts or tribunals ...to ascertain whether a decision on a question of


    [Union] law is necessary to enable them to give judgement” Srl
    CILFIT

    Art 267 TFEU designed to be used only for questions that necessitate
    a ruling.
    National court would not have to seek a PR when:

    the question [of EU law] is irrelevant; or

    the Union provision in question has already


    been interpreted [by the CJ]; or

    that the correct application of Union law is so


    obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable
    doubt.
    4

    National court feels that no reference to the CJEU is required due to the answer been clear - Acte clair

    ‘so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt’ (CILFIT)

    A provision is clear, not National court must be A ‘considerable and Limited support… ‘the
    open to ambiguity. convinced. consistent line of case matter is equally
    law’ [by the CJ obvious to the courts
    (Garland v British Rail of the other Member
    Engineering Ltd)]. States and to the Court
    of Justice’ – is it?

    Note difficulties of
    interpretation in the
    various Member States
    João Filipe Ferreira da
    Silva e Brito and Others
    5

    A nutshell

    Effects

    Purpose Reason

    Preliminary
    Reference Outcomes
    Procedure
    Art 267
    TFEU

    Can a Who
    reference may
    be refer?
    refused? Discretion/
    Obligation

    You might also like