Communication within the Preliminary Rulings Procedure
| Author | Sacha Prechal |
| Published date | 01 December 2014 |
| Date | 01 December 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1402100409 |
| Subject Matter | Legal Debate |
754 21 MJ 4 (2014)
COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE
PRELIMINARY RULINGS PROCEDURE
Responsibilities of the National Courts
S P*
§1. IN TRODUCTION
e system of references for a preliminary ruling obviously is an instrument of
cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts par excellence and,
as such, an important feature of the much-celebrated dialogue between t he Court of
Justice and the national cou rts. As in any serious conversation, good communication is
crucial.A nd as with any other communication, much can go wrong or, at least, t here is
always scope for improvement.
e present contribution hig hlights two aspects in the communication between
the Court of Justice and the national courts. e rst relates to the content of the
reference for a preliminary ruling. It should not come as a surprise that if preliminary
references are poorly prepared, they may result in not ver y helpful preliminary ruli ngs.
In the alternative, tr ying to nd out what the real problem of the referring court is
would require an o en-considerable e ort, without, however, guaranteeing that the
answers given may indeed assist t hat court in deciding t he case before it. e second
aspect is essentia lly of an organizational nature. Certain developments in the national
proceedings have o en-immediate e ects on the prelim inary ruling proceedi ngs before
the Court of Justice. Si nce the preliminary rul ing aims at assisting the national c ourt in
the e ective resolution of an actual dispute, continuing with the case before the Court
of Justice would seem to make lit tle sense, in particula r, where the partie s settle the case
while the prelimi nary proceedings are pending or t he reference for a preliminar y ruling
has been set aside on appeal. However, the communication between the cour ts on these
types of procedur al entanglements is sometimes more complex tha n one would expect.
e discussion of these two topics should indeed be seen in t he broader context of
the functioni ng of the preliminary procedure and its relevance for the development of
* Judge at the Court of Jus tice of the European Union and honora ry Professor of European Law at t he
Utrecht University. Al l views expressed ar e strictly persona l.
To continue reading
Request your trial