COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE NATIONAL COURTS

Relationship between the Court of Justice and the National Courts

Relationship between the Court of Justice and the National Courts

About the Case

In the CILFIT judgment, the Court of Justice sets limits to the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling, which, according to the third paragraph of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty (now Article 234 of the EC Treaty), falls to the national courts of last instance. Those courts are bound to bring a matter before the Court when, in connection with a case, and irrespective of the considerations of the parties involved, a question arises concerning the interpretation of Community law. It falls to the national judge, therefore, to determine whether the question is relevant.

The Court of Justice has laid down few guidelines for the exercise of the discretion by the national court, although it has ruled that a reference is not precluded by either a previous Court of Justice decision on the point (Da Costa en Schaake N.V., Jacob Meijer N.V., and Hoechst-Holland N.V. v Nederlandse Belastingadministratie (Cases 28-30/62) [1963] ECR 31) or by national rules of precedent (Joined Cases 146 & 166/73) [1974] ECR 33); that it may be appropriate to defer a reference until the factual and legal issues have been resolved (Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association v Ireland (Joined Cases 36 & 71/80) [1981] ECR 735); and that the point must be relevant (Dzodzi v Belgian State Cases C-297/88 & C-197/89 [1990] ECR I-3763).

The importance of these guidelines is underscored by the fact that the Court of Justice may reject a reference which does not comply with them. See, for example, Meilicke v ADV/ORGA (Case C-83/91) [1992] ECR I-4871 in which the Court rejected a reference where the factual and legal issue had not been established.

Analysis

These two cases has effected the relationship between national court and court of justice. The primacy of Community law arises from immediate direct effect of its own, it is obvious that it would be seriously affected if EU rules could be displaced by other domestic law contrary to those. Consequently, the rule is the logical result of the direct effect.

In its Judgment Flaminio Costa, 1964, the court came to establish this principle based, among others, two incontrovertible arguments:

to establish a Community of unlimited duration, endowed institutions own personality, legal capacity and real powers stemming from a limitation of competition or a transfer of powers from the States to the Community, they have limited their sovereignty in specific, cannot prevail against this limitation a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of community, and

The binding force of Community law cannot vary from one State to another, without endangering the achievement of the objectives of the treaty without cause discrimination contrary to it.

The Court's doctrine on the primacy of Community law is addressed primeval national judges. This, however, will not be evident in the Court of Luxembourg until the second judgment in Case Simmenthal, in March ...