CJEU Case C‑767/23 / Judgment
-
CJEU Case C‑767/23 / Judgment
Key facts of the case:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Scope of the obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling – Exceptions to that obligation – Obligation to state reasons for the concrete application of those exceptions – National legislation conferring on the national court or tribunal of last instance the power to dismiss actions by means of a summary statement of reasons – Conditions required to reason a refusal to make a reference for a preliminary ruling
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:
The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may rule on a question relating to the interpretation or validity of a provision of EU law raised by one of the parties to the dispute, irrespective of whether or not that question is accompanied by an express request to make a reference for a preliminary ruling, by reasoning its decision in a summary manner, unless that court or tribunal sets out the specific and concrete reasons why one of the three exceptions to the obligation on such a court or tribunal to make a reference for a preliminary ruling established by the Court in the judgment of 6 October 1982, Cilfit (283/81, EU:C:1982:335, paragraph 21), applies in the case in question.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
14. The referring court considers, referring in particular to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of 24 April 2018, Baydar v. the Netherlands (CE:ECHR:2018:0424JUD005538514), that the power conferred on it by Article 91(2) of the Law on foreign nationals to reason summarily complies with the general obligation to state reasons under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), signed in Rome on 4 November 1950. Therefore, it does not intend to ask questions of the Court on that point.
15. However, the referring court notes that it follows from paragraph 51 of the judgment of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi (C‑561/19, EU:C:2021:799), that the decision of a national court or tribunal of last instance, which considers itself relieved of the obligation to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, must show either that the question of EU law raised is irrelevant for the resolution of the dispute before it, that the interpretation of the EU law provision concerned is based on the Court’s case-law or, in the absence of such case-law, that the interpretation of EU law was so obvious to that court as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. The question then arises as to whether the power to reason such a decision in a summary manner is consistent with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in combination with Article 47 of the Charter, where a party to the dispute before the said national court requests that a reference for a preliminary ruling be made. It asks in particular whether, in that case, it must give detailed reasons as to why it is not required to make such a reference, specifying inter alia which of the three Cilfit exceptions applies.
...
17. In those circumstances, the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Must the third paragraph of Article 267 [TFEU], read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the [Charter], be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Article 91(2) of the [Law on foreign nationals], under which the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Administrative [Jurisdiction] Division of the Council of State), as a national court [or tribunal of last instance], can rule summarily, without substantiating which of the three exceptions to its obligation to refer occurs, on a question raised about the interpretation of EU law, whether or not in conjunction with an explicit request for a preliminary ruling?’
18. By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a national court or tribunal of last instance may rule on a question relating to the interpretation or validity of a provision of EU law raised by one of the parties to the dispute, irrespective of whether or not that question is accompanied by an express request to make a reference for a preliminary ruling, by reasoning its decision in a summary manner, without indicating which of the three Cilfit exceptions applies in the case in question.
...
23. In that regard, it follows from the system established by Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, that, if a national court or tribunal of last instance considers that one of the three Cilfit exceptions applies and takes the view, therefore, that it is relieved of its obligation to make a reference to the Court under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, the statement of reasons for its decision must show either that the question of EU law raised is irrelevant for the resolution of the dispute, or that the interpretation of the EU law provision concerned is based on the Court’s case-law or, in the absence of such case-law, that the interpretation of EU law was so obvious to it as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt (judgments of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi, C‑561/19, EU:C:2021:799, paragraph 51, and of 15 October 2024, KUBERA, C‑144/23, EU:C:2024:881, paragraph 62).
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)