Court of Justice
of the EU
Introduction to EU Law
Fall Semester 2020
Iveta Rohová

CJEU – its main functions
1.Enforcement of the Union law (mostly against MS) and settlement of disputes (between MS and the
EU or between the EU institutions)
2.Constitutional review of EU acts
3.Ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of the EU law
4.
•What does it not do:
1.
1.Not an appelate body (does not review decisions of national courts)
2.Solve disputes between individuals and MS
3.Solve disputes between individuals
•
•
•

•Article 19 (1) TEU
•
•The Court of Justice of the European Union shall include the Court of Justice, the General Court
and specialised courts.
•It shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed.
•
•Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields
covered by Union law.
•

European judiciary system
[dichotomy of EU law enforcement]


The composition of the ECJ
•Article 19 (2) TEU:
•The Court of Justice shall consist of one judge from each Member State. It shall be assisted by
Advocates-General.
•The General Court shall include at least one judge per Member State.
•
•27 judges + 11 AG
•6 yrs term, renewable, no retirement age
•Staggered system of appointment (14/14 and 5/6)
•conditions:
•Independence
•Qualification or recognized competence
•President of the Court
•Seated in Luxembourg

Court of Justice – decision making process
•3 - 5 – Grand Chamber (15) - plenary session
•
•Judge-Rapporteur

Independence of judges
•Oath
•Ban on side jobs
•Full secrecy of deliberations
•No concurring or dissenting judgments
•
•
•

General Court
•* 1989
•2 judges from each MS (54)
•no permanent AG
•
•Its jurisdiction?
•Generally: where an individual is involved (exceptional cases!)
•
•Examples:
•Actions brought by natural or legal persons against acts of the EU institutions,
•Including judicial remedy against the decision of the Commission in competition matters
•After 2016, labour dispustes (Civil Service Tribunal)
•the Member States against the Council relating to acts adopted in the field of State aid,
‘dumping' and acts by which it exercises implementing powers;
•seeking compensation for damage caused by the institutions of EU;
•based on contracts made by EU which expressly give jurisdiction to the General Court;
•relating to EU trade marks;
•

Advocates General
•11 AG by the ECJ
•Opinion on the case (2nd opinion which is delivered first J )
•Function?

Types of proceedings before Court of Justice
•References for preliminary rulings
•Enforcement procedure
•Actions for annulment
•Actions for failure to act
•Action for failure to fulfill obligations
•

Preliminary reference (Art. 267 TFEU)
•WHY ? (what is the idea)?
•
•WHAT is the subject of the procedings ?
•
•WHO may submit the reference ?
•
•On what grounds?
•
•Is there an OBLIGATIONS to make such a reference in certain cases ?

What is the idea ? (Why?)
•EU law is in most cases enforced by national courts
•uniformity
•In aplication
•Interpretation !
•
•The CJEU does not work as an appelate body
•
•Cooperation between national courts and the ECJ

What is subject of the preliminary reference/ CJ`s ruling ?
•Art. 267 SFEU (ex. 234 TEC , 177 EECT), para. 1
•
•The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings
concerning:
•(a) the interpretation of the Treaties;
•(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of
the Union
•
ØMainly interpretation
ØValidity of acts (secondary law)

Who may submit the reference?
•„any court or tribunal of a Member State“
•
•Criteria (61/65 Vaassen-Göbbles)
•Established by the law
•Permanent basis
•Compulsory jurisdiction
•Inter partes procedure (dispute)
•Application of rules of law
•Independent
•
•Nordsee (102/81): arbitral tribunals

On what grounds?
•Art. 267 (2) TFEU
•
•Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or
tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give
judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
•
Ø full discretion of that national court
Ø a party to a dispute may not directly invoke the preliminary reference
ØIf an EU provision shall be applied to the case + the court is not sure how to interpret it
ØAlways the question of validity of an EU act
ØMust be necessary for it to deliver the decision
ØNo hypothetical questions
•

Is there an obligation to submit the reference?
•Art. 267 (2) TFEU
•“…. the court or tribunal may request ….“
•
•Art. 267 (3) TFEU
•Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State
against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal
shall bring the matter before the Court.
•
•No judicial remedy available
•Abstract vs concrete theory
•Example: small claims
•[§ 202, para. 2 Czech Civil Procedure Act]
•
•State liability – Köbler case

An exception ?
•Da Costa (28-30/62), CILFIT (283/81)
•
1.The reference is not relevant for the conclusion of the case
•
1.Acte éclairé
•ECJ has already dealt with this question
2.
2.Acte clair
•The interpretation is clear and obvious  (no scope for any reasonable doubt)
•
•
•

Cilfit
Italien textile firms had to pay by way of fixed health inspection levy which was imposed on
imports of sheep wool. They also tried to fight against the levy and argued that Law nº 1968 was
inapplicable because of its incompatibility with EEC which was prohibiting all import charges on
agricultural products. The appendix to the regulation contained a list of products covered but the
wool was not mentioned there expressis verbis. State in this case, represented on a national level
in a court proceedings in italy by ministry of health argued that the interpretation of the
regulation is very clear. However, the question of interpretationhad been already raised and since
the court in the case at hand was a supreme court, it felt obliged to referr a question to the ECJ.
It is for the national court to decide whether a question of EU law needs answering necessarily in
order for it to provide a judgment
There will be no obligation to refer if
The question it not relevant to the outcome of the national case
The question, or a materially similar question, has previously been answered by the Court of
Justice of the European Union
The answer is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt over the answer