Just Say No! Appeals Against Orders for a Preliminary Reference

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW European Public Law Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.54648/euro2020058
G. Butler, J. Cotter
{"title":"Just Say No! Appeals Against Orders for a Preliminary Reference","authors":"G. Butler, J. Cotter","doi":"10.54648/euro2020058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Can an order for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court), made by a lower instance national court, be subject to an appeal to a higher instance national court? To date, the Court has not been sufficiently clear on an answer to this exact question. The Court’s Cartesio judgment mandated that national law could not permit a higher instance national court from varying an order for reference, setting aside an order for reference, or ordering the resumption of national proceedings whilst awaiting the return of the preliminary reference. However, the Court did not say that appeals against an order for reference, more generally, were incompatible, per se, with Union law. This article contends that such breadth given to higher instance national courts is contrary to the intent of Article 267 TFEU, which aims to ensure effective judicial dialogue between all national courts and the Court, uninterrupted by national law and practice. This article makes the case for ending this regime of undue deference to national procedural autonomy on this question, which is problematic in circumstances where the rule of law and judicial independence in all Member States cannot be assumed.\nNational courts, Court of Justice of the European Union, Preliminary reference procedure, national procedural autonomy, Appeals, Appellate courts","PeriodicalId":43955,"journal":{"name":"European Public Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/euro2020058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Can an order for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court), made by a lower instance national court, be subject to an appeal to a higher instance national court? To date, the Court has not been sufficiently clear on an answer to this exact question. The Court’s Cartesio judgment mandated that national law could not permit a higher instance national court from varying an order for reference, setting aside an order for reference, or ordering the resumption of national proceedings whilst awaiting the return of the preliminary reference. However, the Court did not say that appeals against an order for reference, more generally, were incompatible, per se, with Union law. This article contends that such breadth given to higher instance national courts is contrary to the intent of Article 267 TFEU, which aims to ensure effective judicial dialogue between all national courts and the Court, uninterrupted by national law and practice. This article makes the case for ending this regime of undue deference to national procedural autonomy on this question, which is problematic in circumstances where the rule of law and judicial independence in all Member States cannot be assumed. National courts, Court of Justice of the European Union, Preliminary reference procedure, national procedural autonomy, Appeals, Appellate courts
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
直接说不!对初步转审命令的上诉
下级国家法院作出的初步提交欧洲联盟法院(法院)的命令是否可以向上级国家法院提出上诉?迄今为止,法院对这个确切问题的答案还不够清楚。法院的Cartesio判决规定,国家法律不允许高等国家法院在等待初步移交的同时改变移交命令、撤销移交命令或下令恢复国家诉讼。然而,法院并没有说,更普遍地说,对参考命令的上诉本身就不符合联邦法律。该条认为,给予高等国家法院的这种广度违背了《欧盟过渡联邦法》第267条的意图,该条旨在确保所有国家法院与法院之间的有效司法对话不受国家法律和实践的干扰。本条提出了终止这种在这一问题上过分尊重国家程序自主权的制度的理由,在无法假定所有会员国的法治和司法独立的情况下,这种制度是有问题的。国家法院、欧洲联盟法院、初步参考程序、国家程序自主权、上诉、上诉法院
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
‘Respect for Religious Feelings’: As the Italian Case Shows, Fresh Paint Can’t Fix the Crumbling Wall of Blasphemy The ‘Then’ and the ‘Now’ of Forced Relocation of Indigenous Peoples: Repercussions in International Law, Torts and Beyond Subsidiarity v. Autonomy in the EU Book Review: Federalism and Constitutional Law: The Italian Contribution to Comparative Regionalism, Erika Arban, Giuseppe Martinico & Francesco Palermo (eds). London and New York: Routledge. 2021 The Tragic Choices During the Global Health Emergency: Comparative Economic Law Reflections
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1