This is an extract of our Preliminary Reference document, which we sell as part of our European Law Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our European Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
* Development of EU law (direct effect, supremacy)
* Maintenance of institutional balance
* Enhancement of individuals' interests (obl. to refer for court against whose decision there's no nat. remedy)
* Legal integration - uniformity/consistency of EU law
? ECJ: "veritable cornerstone of the operation of internal market" - plays a fundamental role in ensuring Treaty law retains its Comm. Character w/a view to guaranteeing EC law has same effect in all MS. Types of questions referred (i) Treaty interpretation (Art 267 (1)(a))used to make judgments on supremacy & DE ECJ merely interprets Treaty - no judgment on nat. law validity If incompatibility found, obl. on nat. court to redress situation
(ii) Validity & interpretation of EU institutions, bodies etc. acts (Art 267(1)(b))
= Chalmers: 2 striking features a) nat. courts monopoly over disputes involving points of EU law to be decided on nat. law, facts &
application of EU law Nat. courts act as gatekeepers to ECJ - no direct right of access to private parties
= ECJ: 3 stages of EU legal order (i) EU is autonomous legal order (ii) Requiring MS courts to interpret EU law uniformly (iii) By providing for direct relation b/w MS courts and ECJ, Art 267 enables this uniformity Who can refer (1) Body or tribunal - determined by ECJ on the basis of broad definition: factors a. established by law b. compulsory jurisdiction c. decisions of judicial, not admin, nature d. independence i. external - no intervention/pressure liable to jeopardise judgment ii. internal - impartiality
? Complex application Ref can be made only if there's a pending case b/f nat. court which leads to decision of judicial nature o Cartesio - ref couldn't be made b/c court was discharging admin function which didn't resolve dispute In the interest of uniformity, ECJ can rule on issues of validity & interpretation arising out of procedure of bodies to which govt. has assigned some adjudicatory function o Broekmeulen- Dutch Appeals Comm. hearing appeals from a body resp. for admission of docs
= Chalmers: rationale: any body deciding on EU law rights should be able to refer - if not, Cs would have to challenge through another body, adding to expense & delay, dis-incentivising parties from referral but could open floodgates whereby undertrained actors would overload the court.
= AG Colomer: definition is too wide; the strategy behind 267 was to create a conversation b/w ECJ & nat. courts - independent parts of executive not intended to be part of it. Practical consequence: allows bodies w/no legal training to formulate ref + admin actors have a chance to disrupt domestic judicial hierarchy and system of precedent by referring something they disagree with (2) With discretion/ obligation to refer
? Art 267(2) - discretion (any court or tribunal)
? Art 267(3) - court/tr. against whose decision there's no remedy in nat. law(unless CILFIT satisfied/issue previously decided)
- What bodies are covered?
a. abstract theory - bodies whose decisions are never subject to appeal b. concrete theory - bodies whose decisions aren't subject to appeal in that case (Costa v ENEL) o Costa v ENEL - magistrate, whose decisions were normally subject to appeal, could refer to ECJ b/c in that case sum of money too low for appeal to be made in nat. law.
somewhat distorting to nat. judicial hierarchy - lower court can refer even in the face of decision by a higher court ...
[?] NB: nat. court not obliged to raise matters of EU law on own volition but it can't be prevented from doing so by a rule of national law
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our European Law Notes.