Opis: | In my master’s thesis, I discuss the procedure of preliminary ruling according to the Article 267 TFEU and the direct action of the European Commission against the Member State because of the failure to fulfill obligations of its court from the Article 267 TFEU on the basis of the Article 258 TFEU. In the beginning, I discuss the concept of preliminary ruling, basic characteristics of the procedure and the exceptions from the duty to refer a question for the preliminary ruling.
A special emphasis is put on the consequences of impairment of the bindings of the submission or of an erroneous decision of the national court. First, I present the first, more commonly used sanction, i.e. the option of action for compensation of the party against the Member State whose national court did not fulfill the referral duty. Then, I discuss the option of the European Commission to bring an action on the basis of Article 258 TFEU against the Member State of the court because of the mentioned violation.
In the last part, I discuss the recent ruling in Commission v France (C-416/17) where there was a change of the way of the functioning of the European Commission for the first time after more than sixty years. Court of Justice condemned for the first time a Member State for a breach of Article 267(3) TFEU in the context of an infringement action, after the French administrative supreme court failed to make a necessary preliminary reference.
The judgment of the Court of Justice at first glance seems rather technical, but it hides the revolutionary development of the EU judiciary. Through its decision, the Court sent a strong message to the national courts of the last instance (for example, the Supreme Courts). With this, it completes its decision in the Ferreira da Silva case (C-160/14), when it first declared the violation of the CILFIT doctrine acte claire. We can say CILFIT " has sharpened its teeth, and the Court of European Union is prepared to bite with them."
In the future, it will be very interesting to observe the further development of relations and the building of trust between the highest courts of the Member States and the Court of Justice following this European Commission's groundbreaking decision. The final decision to bring such an action will still be on the shoulders of the European Commission and consequently dependent on its (political) will. It will be also interesting to monitor the breach of national courts and, in particular, against which Member States, the European Commission will decide to bring actions. |
---|