CJEU - Case C-457/09 / Order

Claude Chartry v Belgian State
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Fifth Chamber)
Decision date
ECLI (European case law identifier)
  • CJEU - Case C-457/09 / Order
    Key facts of the case:
    Preliminary ruling – Article 234 EC – Assessing whether a national rule is consistent with both EU law and the national Constitution – National legislation laying down the priority nature of preliminary proceedings for reviewing constitutionality – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Need for a connection with EU law – Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court.
    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby orders:

    The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    23) In the same way, Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) states that its provisions are addressed ‘to the Member States only when they are implementing European Union law’.

    24) Furthermore, that limitation has not been amended by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, since when, under Article 6(1) EU, the Charter has had the same legal value as the Treaties. That article states that the provisions of the Charter are not to extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.

    25) Although the right to an effective legal remedy, guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the ECHR, referred to by the national court, constitutes a general principle of Union law (see, inter alia, Case C‑385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt – Duales System Deutschland v Commission [2009] ECR I‑6155, paragraphs 177 and 178), and was reaffirmed by Article 47 of the Charter, the fact remains that the order for reference does not contain any specific information enabling the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings to be considered to be connected with EU law. The dispute in the main proceedings, between a Belgian national and the Belgian State concerning taxation of activities carried out within the territory of that Member State, is not connected in any way with any of the situations contemplated by the provisions of the EC Treaty on the free movement of persons, of services, or of capital. Moreover, that dispute does not concern the application of national measures by which that Member State implements EU law.