European Union Law ( EU Law) - Involvement with Member States in Article 267 TFEU and the preliminary reference procedure
Any national court or tribunal in any Member State may ask the ECJ to interpret a provision of EU law by using the Article 267 procedure. The ECJ just interprets EU law; the national court then has the responsibility of applying the law, as interpreted. This is an important point to keep in mind. According to Lord Denning's explanation in Bulmer v. Bollinger [1974] Ch. 401 at the Court of Appeal: JUDGMENT "It is crucial to make a distinction between the tasks of interpreting the Treaty—to determine its meaning—and applying it—to apply its provisions to the particular case at hand. [First], the obligation to implement the Treaty. The English judges in our courts have the final say on this issue. They are the only judges with the authority to make the final decision in the case. They must gather the necessary information, articulate the issues, render a verdict in favor of one party or the other, and ensure that the verdict is upheld. The meaning and impact of the Treaty must be determined before the English judge can apply it. The English judges are no longer the final arbiters when it comes to interpreting the Treaty. They are no longer qualified to render decisions with legal force. The European Court of Justice is the highest court responsible for interpreting the Treaty. It is important to recognize that Article 267 does not provide for an appeals process. National courts or tribunals initiate it during the actual dispute. Because of this, the procedure is known as the "preliminary reference," and the Court's decisions are referred to as "preliminary judgements." The decisions are intended to help the national court or tribunal come to a final decision. Therefore, the national courts and the ECJ have joint jurisdiction. The national courts render decisions on issues of fact and national law; they also administer both national and EU law. Only abstract concerns regarding the interpretation of EU law are decided by the ECJ (as well as questions touching the legality of EU secondary legislation). Advocate-General Lagrange stated that the "provisions of [Article 267] must lead to a real and fruitful collaboration between the municipal courts and the Court of Justice with mutual respect for their respective jurisdiction" in the first-ever preliminary reference case, De Geus v. Robert Bosch (Case 13/61) [1962] ECR 45. Much more recently, Advocate-General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer used the following culinary analogy to demonstrate how the preliminary rulings system works in Gintec (Case C-374/05) [2007] ECR I-9517: The European Union manual clearly lays out the various ingredients that go into the recipe for a preliminary ruling, but theory runs up against the different conditions that arise every time the dish is prepared, such as the heat source, the pans, the state and country of origin of the ingredients, and even the cook's state of mind. While the national courts are ultimately responsible for the dish, the Court of Justice just serves as the crucial [Union] seasoning while remaining neutral in areas that do not directly affect it. However, the national and European components frequently blend together, forcing each to take on and perfect the flavors of the other in order for them to fulfill their respective roles. It is the responsibility of the Court of Justice to offer the [national court] some instructions by giving it a useful instrument for settling the disagreement, much like a trustworthy kitchen assistant who is unable to prepare an entire dish but serves as the chef's advisor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kembara's Legal InfosInfos about legal issues and legal concepts that are available online . Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|