Obligation to submit a preliminary ruling

Facts

Slovenian dispute between the company K. and the customs authorities afraid compliance with intellectual property rights. K. held that the EU Regulation was not decently interpreted and so requested a mention to the Court of Justice.

The Slovenian ultimate Court (hereinafter: SN) raised doubts as to whether Article 267 ak. 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C C 2016 No 202, p. 47; hereinafter: TFEU) obliges him to accept a review complaint erstwhile deciding on the application K. has assessed the company’s request for a preliminary ruling from the Court.

TS Position

Obligation of the court

In accordance with the single TS position If there is no remedy in national law for a judgement of a national court, that court shall, in principle, be required to mention to the Court in accordance with Article 267 ac. 3 TFEU where a question concerning the explanation of Union law or the validity of a secondary act has been raised before it ( TS judgement of 22.12.2022, Airbnb Ireland and Airbnb Payments UK, C-83/21, Legalis, paragraph 79). The Court has consistently held that specified a court may be exempted from the work laid down in Article 267 ak. 3 TFEU. only if it considers that the question raised is not applicable to the case or that given The EU provision has already been interpreted by the Courtor that The correct explanation of Union law is so apparent that it leaves no area for reasonable doubt.

The referring court explains that, in accordance with the Slovenian regulation, it is not required to assess, at the phase of examination of the application for a review application, whether, in the context of the review procedure, a question referred for a preliminary ruling on the issue of Union law raised in support of that request should be brought to the Court. If the review action is not accepted for examination, the dismissive decision ends the proceedings. In specified a case, the explanation of Union law adopted by the lower court could be binding. In the assessment of the TS, specified a situation may jeopardise the effectiveness of the cooperation strategy between national courts and the Court laid down in Article 267 TFEU and the accomplishment of the objectives pursued by this provision.

It besides follows from settled caselaw that the rule of explanation of national law in accordance with Union law requires national courts, while respecting in peculiar the prohibition of explanation of national law contra legem, have done everything within their competence, taking into account all the provisions of national law and applying the nationally recognised explanation method, in order to guarantee the full effectiveness of the provision under consideration of Union law and to address the objectives pursued by it ( TS judgement of 29.6.2017, Popławski, C-579/15, Legalis, paragraphs 31 to 34). In the present case, the explanation of the Slovenian government in question, according to the TS, seems possible. The Court considers that this provision can be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 267 ak.3 TFEU, in so far as the criterion laid down in that provision on the importance of the legal question raised in order to guarantee legal certainty, uniform application or improvement of the law covers a situation in which the organization to the dispute seeking the adoption of a review action raises a question concerning the explanation or validity of a provision of Union law which does not fall within any of the above mentioned exceptions and which so requires the Court to request a preliminary ruling.

The Court stressed that the work of a national court whose decisions are not subject to appeal is without prejudice to its work for taking a decision, at what phase of national proceedings the question referred for a preliminary ruling To the TS. The Court explained that a preliminary ruling on whether a preliminary ruling should be submitted at the phase of the examination of the application for examination or at a later phase ( TS Opinion 4.6.2002), Lyckeskog, C-99/00, Legalis, paragraph 18). If the SN decides to request a preliminary ruling at the phase of the examination of the application for a review complaint to be examined, it should suspend its examination until a preliminary ruling has been given and then implement that decision in the context of the assessment of whether a review complaint should be accepted.

The Court held that Article 267 ak 3 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding that a national court whose decisions are not subject to appeal under interior law should decide, in the course of its examination of an application for a review action, to be examined which depends on the importance of the legal question raised by 1 of the parties to the dispute in order to guarantee legal certainty, uniform application of the law or its development, to dismiss specified a request for a review action without assessing whether it would be obliged to ask the Court a preliminary ruling on the explanation or validity of a provision of Union law raised in support of that application.

Reasons

The Court held that Article 267 TFEU in conjunction with Article 47 of the NPP ak. 2 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court whose rulings are not subject to interior law should, in a decision dismissing the application for a review application for a preliminary ruling with a question concerning the explanation or validity of a provision of Union law, be required to mention to the Court, provide the reasons why he has not requested a preliminary ruling from the Court. It is so justified that this question is not applicable for the result of the dispute, either that a provision of Union law has already been interpreted by the Court, or that a correct explanation of Union law is sufficiently apparent that it leaves no area for reasonable doubt.

Comment