nach oben

Erschienen in:

2024 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

National Courts and the CJEU: A Common Judicial System

verfasst von : Allan Rosas

Erschienen in: On the Relation between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and National Fundamental Rights

Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The European Union’s (EU) judicial system consists of two main pillars: the national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)—the latter consisting currently of two courts, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the General Court. National courts are important as EU law is to a large extent applied at the national rather than Union level. The question of the conformity of national acts with Union law cannot as a rule be brought directly before the CJEU but should be raised before a national court, which may, and in some instances must, request a preliminary ruling from the ECJ on the proper interpretation and, as the case may be, validity of relevant Union legal norms. It is up to the national courts to decide whether, and on what grounds, to request a preliminary ruling and they also then determine the facts of the case and the content of applicable national law. After having received the ruling of the ECJ, the national court will decide on the final outcome of the case.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel The Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Case Law of the ECJ: The Significance and Decisive Advantages of a Functional Approach

Nächstes Kapitel The Implementation of Charter Rights in the Austrian System of Fundamental Rights Protection

According to Art. 19 para. 1, first subparagraph, of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the CJEU “shall include the Court of Justice, the General Court and specialised courts”. Since the integration of the EU Civil Service Tribunal, established in 2005, into the General Court in 2016, there are no specialised courts. Art. 19 para. 1, second subparagraph, refers to the national level in providing that “Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law”.

See Art. 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). At the time of writing, all preliminary rulings are handled by the ECJ rather than the General Court. The ECJ has recently requested, pursuant to Art. 81 para. 2 TFEU, the transfer, to the General Court, of jurisdiction to handle requests for preliminary rulings in specific areas (such as value added tax and customs matters), as foreseen in Art. 256 para. 3 TFEU. According to the latter provision, the General Court “shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for preliminary ruling under Article 267, in specific area laid down by the Statute”. This change will require an amendment to the Statute of the CJEU (Protocol No 3 annexed to the Treaties).

See Art. 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, [2012] OJ L 265/1, which lays down rules prescribing the content of a request for a preliminary ruling. See also Rosas (2014), p. 83.

CJEU, judgment of 5 February 1963, Van Gend en Loos v Administratie der Belastingen, C-26/62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1. Opinion of AG Roemer of 12 December 1962 EU:C:1962:42.

CJEU, judgment of 15 July 1964, Costa v E.N.E.L., C-6/64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66. See also Rosas and Armati (2018), pp. 12, 64–68.

CJEU, judgment of 12 November 1969, Stauder v Stadt Ulm, C-29/69, ECLI:EU:C:1969:57.

See, in particular, CJEU, judgment of 17 December 1970, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, C-11/70, ECLI:EU:C:1970:114; CJEU, judgment of 14 May 1974, Nold, C-4/73, ECLI:EU:C:1975:114.

Rosas (2007), pp. 36–40.

Rosas and Armati (2018), pp. 157–161.

CJEU, judgment of 9 March 1978, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal, C-106/77, ECLI:EU:C:1978:49.

CJEU, judgment of 22 October 1987, Foto-Frost, C-314/85, ECLI:EU:C:1987:452. See further below, Sect. 6.

Dougan (2022), p. 289.

Rosas and Armati (2018), pp. 64–65.

See at footnote 4, 5 and 10.

Rosas and Armati (2018), pp. 64–65.

[2004] OJ C 310.

This construction was adopted after the CJEU, Opinion 1/09 of 8 March 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, had ruled out the delegation of the jurisdiction of national courts to an international patent court. See also Rosas (2012), p. 105.

Art. 20 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, [2013] OJ C 175/1.

See, e.g., the judgment of the Czech Constitutional Court of 31 January 2012, File No Pl US 5/11 (Compare CJEU, judgment of 22 June 2011, Landtová, C-399/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:415), see also Rosas and Armati (2018), p. 67. Judgment of the Danish Supreme Court of 6 December 2016, Case 15/2014 (First Chamber), see also Armati (2019), p. 145.

BVerfG, judgment of 5 May 2020, 2 BvR 859/15. See also Rosas (2020), pp. 270–271.

Judgment of 7 October 2021, K 3/21. As the judgment refer to certain interpretations of the said provisions of the TEU, its precise implications for the relationship between EU law and national law are far from evident.

It should be recalled that Art. 1 para. 1 TEU concerns the very establishment of the Union.

European Commission, Press Release, 15 February 2023, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_842. Accessed on 1 Oct 2023.

See Art. 260 TFEU. There is no maximum level fixed for the lump sums and penalty payments which may be ordered by the ECJ.

See, e.g., European Parliament, Committee on Petitions, Notice to members, 3 March 2022, Petition No 0634/2021, www.europarl.europa.eu.

See Rosas et al. (2023).

CJEU, judgment of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, para. 29; CJEU, judgment of 26 February 2013, Melloni, C-399/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, para. 60.

BVerfG, Orders of 6 November 2019, 1 BvR 16/13 and 1 BvR 276/17.

See, e.g., Rosas (2013), p. 97.

Bobek and Adams-Prassl (2020).

See, e.g., CJEU, judgment of 15 November 2016, Ullens de Schooten, C-268/15, ECLI:EU:C:2018:874.

CJEU, judgment of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, para. 44.

Bobek and Adams-Prassl (2020).

Rosas (2020), pp. 271–279.

See, e.g., Rosas and Armati (2018), pp. 106–108; Rosas (2020), p. 276. To mention but a few examples from this body of case law, see CJEU, judgment of 23 January 2020, Energiavirasto, C-578/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:35; CJEU, judgment of 11 June 2020, Prezident Slovenskej Republiky, C-378/19, EU:C:2020:462; CJEU, judgment of 2 September 2021, Commission v Germany, C-718/18, ECLI:EU:C:2021:662.

Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2017/1624, [2019] OJ L 295/1.

Art. 7 para. 1 of Regulation 2019/1896.

Art. 17 para. 2 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“the EPPO”), [2017] OJ L 283/1.

Art. 13 para. 3 of Regulation 2017/1939.

CJEU, judgment of 26 February 2019, Rimšēvičs and European Central Banak v Latvia, Joined Cases C-202/18 and C-238/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:139.

Art. 14 para. 2 of Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, annexed to the TEU and the TFEU.

Rosas (2020), pp. 273–274.

Prek and Lefèbre (2017), pp. 374–378.

Regulation (EU) 217/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark (codification), [2017] OJ L 154/1. See Art. 8 para. 4 and 60 para. 1. See also Prek and Lefèbre (2017), pp. 393–394.

CJEU, judgment of 27 March 2014, OHIM v National Lottery Commission, C-530/12 P, ECLI:EU:C:2014:186, para. 44; CJEU, judgment of 5 April 2017, EUIPO v Szajner, C-598/14, ECLI:EU:C:2017:265, para. 38. See also Rosas (2020), p. 277.

Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, [2013] OJ L 287/63, Art. 4 para. 3.

Prek and Lefèbre (2017), pp. 380–381; Rosas (2020), pp. 277–278.

CJEU, judgment of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi, C-219/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1023.

Council Regulation No 2017/1939 (n 36) Art. 5 para. 3.

Art. 42 para. 2 lit. a of Regulation 2017/1939.

See at footnotes 40–41 above. See also CJEU, judgment of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi, C-219/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:1023.

See Art. 123 of the Union trade mark regulation 2017/1001 (supra, footnote 44). See also Art. 35 para. 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Art. 81 and 82 of the Treaty, [2003] L 1/1.

Broberg and Fenger (2014).

CJEU, judgment of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi, C-561/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:799, para. 26–66, quotation from para. 33 and 66. Cf. CJEU, judgment of 6 October, Cilfit and Others, C-283/81, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335. See also CJEU, judgment of 4 October 2018, Commission v France, C-416/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:811.

See, e.g., ECtHR, judgment of 15 December 2022, Rutar and Rutar Marketing v Slovenia, Appl. No. 21164/20.

The basic judgment is: CJEU, judgment of 22 October 1987, Foto-Frost, C-314/85, ECLI:EU:C:1987:452.

CJEU, Opinion 1/09 of 8 March 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123. See also Rosas (2012), pp. 105–121.

CJEU, Opinion 1/09 of 8 March 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, para 66.

CJEU, Opinion 1/09 of 8 March 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, para 69.

See, e.g., CJEU, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v Poland, C-619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531. See also Pech and Kochenov (2021).

CJEU, judgment of 6 October, Cilfit and Others, C-283/81, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335 and CJEU, judgment of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi, C-561/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:799.

CJEU, judgment of 22 October 1987, Foto-Frost, C-314/85, ECLI:EU:C:1987:452.

Armati L (2019) Acts of rebellion, or the enemy within? A consideration of the combative ruling of the Supreme Court of Denmark and the imperative of genuine judicial dialogue. In: Lenaerts K, Bonichot C-J, Kanninen H, Naômé C, Pohjankoski P (eds) An ever-changing Union? Perspectives on the future of EU law in honour of Allan Rosas. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 145–162

Bobek M, Adams-Prassl J (eds) (2020) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Member States. Hart Publishing, Oxford

Broberg M, Fenger N (2014) Preliminary references to the European Court of Justice, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Dougan M (2022) The primacy of Union law over incompatible national measures: beyond disapplication and towards a remedy of nullity? Common Mark Law Rev 59(5):1301–1332CrossRef

Pech L, Kochenov D (2021) Respect for the rule of law in the case law of the European Court of Justice: a casebook overview of key judgments since the Portuguese Judges Case. Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, Stockholm. https://sieps.se/en/publications/2021/respect-for-the-rule-of-law-in-the-case-law-of-the-european-court-of-justice/. Accessed 1 Oct 2023

Prek M, Lefèbre S (2017) The EU courts as “national” courts: national law in the EU judicial process. Common Mark Law Rev 54(2):369–402CrossRef

Rosas A (2007) The European Court of Justice and Fundamental Rights: yet another case of judicial activism? In: Baudenbacher C, Bull H (eds) European integration through interaction of legal regimes. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, pp 33–63

Rosas A (2012) The national judge as EU judge: opinion 1/09. In: Cardonnel P, Rosas A, Wahl N (eds) Constitutionalising the EU judicial system: essays in honour of Pernilla Lindh. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 105–121

Rosas A (2013) The applicability of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights at national level. Eur Yearb Hum Rights 13:97–112

Rosas A (2014) The content of requests for preliminary rulings to the European Court of Justice and the EFTA Court – what are the minimum requirements? In: EFTA Court (ed) The EEA and the EFTA Court: decentred integration. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 83–94

Rosas A (2020) International law – Union law – national law: autonomy or common legal system? In: Évolution des rapports entre les ordres juridiques de l’Union européenne, international et nationaux: Liber amicorum Jiří Malenovský. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 261–282

Rosas A, Armati L (2018) EU constitutional law: an introduction, 3rd rev edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford

Rosas A, Raitio J, Pohjankoski P (eds) (2023) The rule of law’s anatomy in the EU: foundations and protections. Hart Publishing, Oxford

Titel: National Courts and the CJEU: A Common Judicial System
verfasst von: Allan Rosas
Verlag: Springer Nature Switzerland
Buch: On the Relation between the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and National Fundamental Rights
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-52684-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-031-52685-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52685-5_3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner