European Union Law ( EU Law) - Inadmissible references: "Docket control"
Requests for preliminary rulings are infrequently denied by the ECJ. The ECJ is, in theory, required to respond if the issue being addressed is one of interpretation. There are three circumstances, nonetheless, in which requests for preliminary judgements have been ruled to be inadmissible. Contrived argument The ECJ declared in Leur-Bloem (Case C-28/95) [1998] QB 182: "A reference by a national court can only be rejected if it appears that the [Article 267] procedure has been misused and a ruling from the Court elicited by means of a contrived dispute, or it is obvious that [Union] law cannot apply, either directly or indirectly, to the circumstances of the case referred to the Court," according to the rule. In Foglia v. Novello (No 2) (Case 244/80), this circumstance arose. [1981] Case Example: ECR 3045 Case 244/80: Foglia v. Novello (No. 2) [1981] ECR 3045 A number of cases of an Italian liqueur wine were ordered by Ms. Novello, a French national, from an Italian wine dealer named Foglia. The sales agreement stated that Novello would not be responsible for any fees levied by the French or Italian authorities in violation of (Union) law. When the wine entered France, the French Customs officers reportedly levied an illegitimate duty on it. After paying for it, Foglia filed a lawsuit against Ms. Novello to try and recoup the money. The judge in the Italian court asked for a decision on how to read Article 110. The ECJ, however, declined to respond, claiming that the proceedings were "artificial" and had been fabricated by the parties to test the legality of the French tax laws. Although this ruling has drawn criticism, it is acceptable given that there was no actual EU law for the ECJ to rule on. In Meilicke v. Meyer (Case C-89/91) [1992] ECR I-4871, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) followed the precedent set in Foglia v. Novello (1981) by declining to consider a number of questions referred to it by the Hanover Regional Court because they were all related to Professor Meilike's theories regarding EU company law and there was no actual disagreement between the parties. The Court declared that Article 267's goal was to aid in the administration of justice in Member States, not to provide advisory views on broad or speculative issues. Despite arguments to the contrary by an interested observer, the ECJ has agreed that the debate was real in a number of following cases. For instance, the ECJ rejected the Belgian government's argument that a VAT dispute (between a Belgian company and the Belgian tax authorities) was fabricated in Idéal Tourisme (Case C-36/99) [2000] ECR I-6049, concluding that "the documents in the case contain nothing to show that the parties to the main proceedings manifestly colluded to obtain a ruling from the Court by means of an artificial dispute, as was the case in Foglia The documents clearly show that Idéal Tourisme and the Belgian State did not agree to send hypothetical questions to the Court for a preliminary judgement. Instead, it is obvious that the parties differ on a number of crucial points. In Bacardi-Martini v. Newcastle United FC (2003), the ECJ declined to reply to an English High Court's request based on circumstances that were comparable to those in Foglia v. Novello (1981). Newcastle United FC v. Bacardi-Martini (Case C-318/00) [2003] ECR I–905 A contract had been made between Bacardi and NUFC to promote the latter's goods on billboards at NUFC's stadium for a UEFA Cup game between NUFC and Metz in December 1996. However, NUFC backed out of the agreement when it learned that the match will be streamed live in France through satellite because French law forbids the advertising of alcoholic beverages on television. The High Court heard a case in which Bacardi sued NUFC and asked for a decision on how Article 56 should be interpreted (the free movement of services). The ECJ declined to take on the reference, stating that it needed to exercise "particular vigilance" if a court from one Member State requested a reference in order to examine whether the laws of another Member State was in compliance with EU law. Irrelevance The ECJ may reject the request if it relates to elements of EU law that are peripheral to the actual dispute. In BP Supergas v. Greece (Case C-62/93) [1995] ECR I-9883, the ECJ held that a request will be denied if it is "very evident" that the inquiry has "no relevance" to the underlying dispute at hand. insufficient background knowledge of the facts or the law In Telemasicabruzzo (Cases C-320 to 322/90) [1993] ECR I-393, the ECJ rejected a reference because it lacked adequate details regarding the parties' legal disagreement or the factual background. La Pyramide (Case C-378/93) [1994] ECR I-3999 provided confirmation of this, with the ECJ indicating that this would be the case particularly if the factual situation was complex.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kembara's Legal InfosInfos about legal issues and legal concepts that are available online . Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|