Facts
AM – Moroccan national whose spouse and children live in the Netherlands – has applied for a residence licence in that country. By decision of the Dutch authority, this request was rejected due to the fact that AM has already held a residence licence in Spain. In the course of the procedure AM He appealed, inter alia, to the Court of First Instance that he had not requested a preliminary ruling from the Court pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 202, p. 47; hereinafter: TFEU) despite the differences in Dutch case law on the derived right of residence. The referring court considers that the answer to the question of explanation of EU law raised by AM is clear from the case law of the TS. Accordingly, in accordance with the judgments of the Court of Justice of 6.10.1982, Cilfit, C-283/81, Legalis and judgement of 6.10.2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi, C-561/19, Legalis, that court considers that it is not obliged to make a mention for a preliminary ruling and that it may regulation by providing a summary justification for the judgment, in accordance with the Dutch Foreigners Act.
By means of the question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court seeks to find whether Article 267 Ak 3 TFEU, in conjunction with Article 47 Ak 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ C C 2010, p. No. 83, p. 389; hereinafter: KPP) must be interpreted as precluding national rules on the basis of which the national court, whose rulings are not subject to appeal, the question referred to him about Union law may decide by issuing a summary message of reasons and without justifying which of the 3 derogations from the work to mention a preliminary ruling in a given case?
TS Position
If in national law There is no appeal against the decision of the national court, that court must, in principle, mention to the Court in accordance with Article 267 ak. 3 TFEU., where a question has been raised before him concerning the explanation of Union law or the validity of an act of secondary law ( TS judgement of 15.10.2024, CUBERA, C-144/23, Legalis, paragraph 34).
A national court whose decisions are not contested may, consequently, be exempted from that work only if it is in a situation corresponding to one of the 3 exceptions to judgement C-283/81 (point 21). It follows from the second judgement that specified a court to which the substance of Union law has been raised is exempted from the work to address the Court within the meaning of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union if it finds that the question in question is irrelevant to the case that the provision of Union law has already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct explanation of Union law is so apparent that it does not leave area for any reasonable uncertainty (hereinafter: 3 exceptions). Cilfit).
The Court points out that, under the strategy laid down in Article 267 TFEU in Article 47a(2) of the NAP, it is apparent that, where a national court whose decisions are not contested, it considers that it is faced with 1 of the 3 exceptions Cilfit, and consequently considers that it is exempt from the work to request a preliminary ruling from the TS provided for in Article 267 ak. 3 TFEU, the reasons for his decision should indicate, that the question referred to him about Union law is not applicable to the result of the dispute or that the explanation of the applicable Union provision is based on the case law of the TS or, in the absence of specified case law, that the explanation of EU law is so apparent to the courts of the last instance that it leaves no area for reasonable uncertainty (Case C-144/23, paragraph 62).
The TS so considered that a national court whose decisions are not contested, He can't ignore the charges. on the explanation or validity of a provision of Union law without prior evaluationwhether he is obliged to mention that question to the Court or whether that question falls within 1 of the 3 exceptions Cilfit. It follows that, if specified a court decides not to mention to the TS on the basis of 1 of these exceptions, its decision should in any event comply with the request of justification, namely to supply detailed and circumstantial reasons why this exception applies. In addition, the TS considered that this work of justification should apply, it is adequate for 1 of the parties to the dispute to trust on Union law, without requiring it to make a clear request for a preliminary ruling.
In the assessment of the TS, where a associate State allows a national court whose decisions are not contested to supply a summary justification to guarantee appropriate administration of the justice strategy by limiting the duration of the judicial proceedings and allowing that court to devote a fundamental part of the measures to the examination of cases applicable to ensuring uniformity and consistency of the law, However, specified a summary justification should besides contain detailed and circumstantial reasons why that court considers that 1 of the 3 exceptions Cilfit applicable in the context of a dispute pending before him and that it is so justified not to request a preliminary ruling from the TS. specified work shall be deemed to be fulfilled if the national court whose decisions are not contested clearly indicates that it intends to repeat as its own justification accepted by the lower court in the dispute in question, in so far as that lower court has provided reasons for considering that the raised issue of Union law is irrelevant to the case or that the Union provision in question has already been interpreted by the Court, or that the explanation is so apparent that it leaves no area for reasonable doubt.
As regards the detailed and circumstantial justification for applying 1 of the 3 exceptions CilfitThe TS stated that it should, however, in rule be Conciseif the national court whose decisions are not contested considers that the questions which 1 or both parties to the dispute in question propose to it, are irrelevant to the resolution of this dispute, namely, where the answer to these questions, irrespective of its content, cannot have any effect on the settlement of the dispute (Case C-283/81, paragraph 10). Similarly, erstwhile the question presented to the national court is of substance identical to the question, which has already been the subject of a preliminary ruling in an analogous case or, even more so, in the same national case (Case C-283/81, paragraphs 13, 14), the referring of the TS itself to the applicable case law may justify a refusal to mention to the Court.
The Court held that Article 267 ak 3 TFEU under Article 47 ak 2 of the NPP must be interpreted as precluding national rules by which a national court whose rulings are not subject to appeal may regulation on a question concerning the explanation or validity of a provision of Union law presented by 1 of the parties to the dispute, irrespective of whether that question is accompanied by a clear request for a preliminary ruling from the Court, giving a summary of the reasons for its ruling, unless that court gives detailed and circumstantial reasons why 1 of the 3 exceptions Cilfit is applicable in a given case.
Comment
This judgment, although given in the Dutch case, is besides valid in disputes before Polish courts. It clarifies the rules on the work to state reasons by national courts ruling at the last instance of a decision not to mention a preliminary ruling to the TS pursuant to Article 267 ak. 3 TFEU where 1 of the 3 exceptions exists Cilfit (see, inter alia, Article 177(1)(3))1 KPC). The Court clarified this work on the knowing that specified courts are always required to supply a clear message of the reasons for not making a mention for a preliminary ruling, which is to explain in item and specifically why 1 of these exceptions applies, even if national law allows it to settle a peculiar kind of case with a summary message of reasons.
In the context of disputes before the Polish courts, it is besides apparent from this judgement that the parties to these disputes, e.g. consumers, in spite of sometimes the position of their attorneys, do not have the right to mention the case to the Court, as the final decision in this respect is the case. On the another hand, it is crucial that the organization does not gotta ask for a question for a preliminary ruling, that it should invoke EU law and that the national court whose rulings are not subject to appeal must measure the merits and the request to submit a preliminary ruling.
Judgment of the TS of 24.3.2026, Remling, C-767/23
