European Union Law(EU Law) - Mandatory references to Previous Rulings
Even though the issue has already been determined, is a preliminary referral required by a national court of final resort? If that were the case, it would result in a lot of "repeat" referrals, which is incredibly ineffective. As a result, the ECJ concluded that national courts of last resort are exempt from having to send matters to them. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in Da Costa (1963) that "the authority of an interpretation... already provided by the Court may deprive the duty [under the third paragraph of Article 267] of its aim and thereby empty it of its substance." This is particularly true where the question at hand shares a material similarity with one that has already been the subject of a preliminary judgement in a case like it. The ECJ later agreed with this in CILFIT (1982). Even though the questions at issue are not technically identical, the ECJ noted Da Costa and stated that "the same impact... may be generated..." Additionally, Lord Denning stated in Bulmer v. Bollinger (1974): "In some instances, it may be discovered that the [ECJ] has already decided the same issue in another case." In that case, the English court's decision is not required. Without bothering the [ECJ], it can continue with the earlier decision. A recent instance of this can be found in the case of Mirga v. Samin before the UK Supreme Court. UKSC 1; 1 WLR 481; [2016]. Despite being the "court of last resort" in the UK, the Supreme Court decided against requesting a preliminary decision because the ECJ had already addressed the issue in Dano (Case C-333/13) [2015] 1 CMLR 48; [2015] Alimanovic and 1 WLR 2519 (Case C-67/14) [2016] CMLR 1:29; QB:308 (2016. We'll talk about each of these scenarios later.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kembara's Legal InfosInfos about legal issues and legal concepts that are available online . Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|