CJEU and Preliminary Ruling

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 25-02-16 09:15
Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano (2009)
The CJEU significantly extended the scope of European Citizenship
1 of 27
R&V Haegeman (1973)
CJEU gave wide definition of ‘Union acts’ to include international agreements
2 of 27
Vaassen (1965)
CJ: the tribunal came within art 267 TFEU as it was a judicial body representing the power of the state and settling as a matter of law disputes concerning the application of the pension scheme
3 of 27
Re Borker (1980)
CJEU refused a preliminary ref because the body was NOT ‘exercising a judicial function’
4 of 27
Garofalo (1996)
All UK admin’ve tribunals established by statute would be recognised as having right under art 267 TFEU to make a ref
5 of 27
De Coster (2000)
Factors Court take into account: whether body was est’d by law; permanent; jurisdiction is compulsory; applies Rules of Law; independent
6 of 27
Rheinmuhlen
Where a court or tribunal has a right to make a ref under Art 267 TFEU it cannot be deprived of that right by national law
7 of 27
Trent Taverns v Sykes (1999)
Chadwick J; the power of a lower court to make a ref cannot be abrogated by a prov’n of national law-lower courts must be free to make a ref if it considers that the superior Court’s ruling could lead it to give judgment contrary to Union law
8 of 27
Ex p Rogers (1982)
Lord Lane CJ: mag’s have jurisdiction to make a ref but they should consider whether a higher court might be in a better position to assess the need for a ref and to formulate the questions to be sent to the court
9 of 27
Bulmer v Bollinger (19754)
Lord Denning: ‘nec’ means the outcome of the case must be dependent on the decision
10 of 27
Bulmer v Bollinger (1974)
Lord Denning: only those courts whose decisions are never subject to appeal are within scope of Art 267(3) – ABSTRACT THEORY
11 of 27
Costa v ENEL (1964)
CONCRETE THEORY – question is whether the court’s decision in the case is subject to appeal
12 of 27
De Costa (1962)
CJEU: if the Court gas already pronounced on a question of interp’n it might deprive the oblig’n to refer of its purpose and empty it of its substance – a pre ref might NOT be nec where the CJEU has already pronounced on a question of interp’n
13 of 27
CILFIT (1981)
CJEU: oblig’n on Art 26793) courts to make a ref in a clearer position – oblig’n to refer is based on coop’n between national courts and European Court
14 of 27
CILFIT (1981)
CJ: art 267(3) TFEU places oblig’n t refer unless it was est’d: that the q’n raised is irrelevant; has already been interpreted, or; that the correct applic’n of Union Law is so obv as to leave no scope for reasonable doubt
15 of 27
L’Oreal v Bellure (2007)
Duty of national judge is to follow EU law as interpreted by the CJEU-even if they disagree
16 of 27
Mellicke (2007)
The ECJ will refuse a prelim ruling if q’n referred is hypothetical, irrelevant or unclear
17 of 27
Dzodzi (1990)
It must be relevant in sense that it must be important to the national courts’ ability to the case- relevance is determined by the national court making the referral
18 of 27
Foglia (1980)
CJEU refused a ref as it felt that there was an absence of any real legal dispute between the parties
19 of 27
Fabrik v Provide (1988)
CJEU confirmed it would NOT lightly infer an absence of a genuine dispute between parties
20 of 27
Telemarsicabruzzo (1993)
The question put forward by the national court must be precisely and clearly phrased
21 of 27
Meilicke (1991)
The prelim ref procedure should be seen as a partnership between national courts and CJEU
22 of 27
Bacardi v Newcastle United FC (2000)
Prelim ref rejected as it was questioning the compatibility with EU law of another MS
23 of 27
Foto-Frost (1985)
CJEU: national courts are entitled to find that acts adopted by the institutions of the Uinon are valid, but they have NO power in normal proceedings to declare such acts invalid
24 of 27
Art 267(1) TFEU
The EU Courts have ability to give preliminary rulings on: (a)interpretation of the Treaty; (b)validity and interp’n of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union
25 of 27
Art 267(3) TFEU
Lays down an oblig’n to make a ref to where the court or tribunal of a MS is one ‘against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law’
26 of 27
Art 267(2) TFEU
Where a question of interp’n of EU law is raised before any court of a MS, that court of a MS, that court may, if it considers that a decision on the question is nec to enable it to give judgment, request the ECJ to give a ruling
27 of 27

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

CJEU gave wide definition of ‘Union acts’ to include international agreements

Back

R&V Haegeman (1973)

Card 3

Front

CJ: the tribunal came within art 267 TFEU as it was a judicial body representing the power of the state and settling as a matter of law disputes concerning the application of the pension scheme

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

CJEU refused a preliminary ref because the body was NOT ‘exercising a judicial function’

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

All UK admin’ve tribunals established by statute would be recognised as having right under art 267 TFEU to make a ref

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all EU resources »