The Court of Justice redentials - Essay Example

Topic: Preliminary ruling system is a procedural mechanism of the European Union law which enables national courts to ascertain uniformity of interpretation and application in all states. The Court of Justice of the European Union, under this system, is vested with general jurisdiction to provide preliminary rulings (a) on the interpretation of European Union law and (b) on the legality of acts of institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union. This power to adjudicate and interpret laws are mandated under Article 19(3)(b) of the Treaty on European Union (OJEU 2008 C 115, p. 13) and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJEU 2008 C 115, p. 47). Article 256(3) of TFEU stipulated that General Court is vested with jurisdiction to decide on questions of laws that were referred for preliminary ruling under Article 267 in specific areas mentioned under a Statute. Only the Court of Justice is accorded by such power to give preliminary rulings except in cases stated under Articles 275 and 276 TFEU and Article 10 of Protocol (No 36) on Transitional Provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon (OJEU 2008 C 115, p. 322). Legal luminaries explained that the procedure was laid to ensure the effectiveness of the cooperation of the Court of Justice and national courts. It eases the procedural mechanism (a) to ascertain what court has jurisdiction to hear and interpret question of laws with uniformity; (b) provide guidance for national courts in the application of this procedure. The question should also be stated in a legal form clearly, concisely and simply. Information must detail the subject on dispute, findings of factual situation and should be written in a tenor following possible applicable provision of laws with citation of national case-laws with correct references. The national court must provide ample reason which motivated the body to bring the question to the Court of Justice for interpretation or validity as well as the relations of such stipulation to the national provisions. It must also have summary of relevant contentions of parties under such proceedings. The ruling will be rendered by the Court of Justice free of fees or charges. This ruling procedure is solely for the interpretation of statutes, provisions and not about laws application to facts of cases. The process tasked the Court of Justice to simply interpret the meaning of the statutes and provisions of Europian Union Law which will be stated in a formal reply, but the referring court will assume the responsibility to make conclusion from such reply. The Court of Justice will not assume jurisdiction on cases where there is no genuine dispute, question of law apparently is hypothetical or if the national court failed to give factual legal information of the case. Further, under this new provision, as stipulated in Article 267 TFEU, those who can submit a question of law are any of the Member State’s court or tribunal who is aiming at gaining clarified judicial interpretation of a law. The national court may or may not refer a question to the Court of Justice in a preliminary hearing in order to arrive at appropriate understanding of the provisions and therefore help hasten the resolve of an issue brought to its attention with sense of resoluteness. If it’s evident that correct interpretation of the rule of law is present, the question need not be raised to the Court of Justice for legal remedy. It is the role of the national court to provide reasons about the necessity for Court of Justice to give judgment on a question raised—which must be, by the way, contextualized on factual and legal contexts. To reiterate, only new questions of interpretation should be submitted to intentionally draw uniformity of understanding and application of European Union law to cases or when circumstance arise where an existing case-law is not applicable to such set of facts. Critics to this procedure however raised that the procedure seem inapplicable to labor laws because Member States have varied laws on labor. One case was cited to justify this commentary which involve European Union law on employment and industrial relations where a Court decided that indirect discrimination is justified based on legal bases using the principle of proportionality –however, the bases thereof and such proportionality is left to the objective understanding of the national court (Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v. Karin Weber von Hartz, Case 170/84, [1986] ECR 1607). This shows that the procedure does not intend develop hierarchy of powers but rather of shared roles in resolving cases. Moreover, the same procedure applies to community laws to ascertain uniformity of interpretation of EU and of the provision of Community Laws. The Court of Justice only assume jurisdiction to interpret laws in specific cases where national law of Member State is referred substantially in the Community laws and to ascertain the application of rules to internal situation of Member States. In C-197/89 Dzodzi v Belian State (1990), the court was clear on its limitations and powers, i.e. to give an interpretation of Community Law, give advice and interpretation of Community law to enable a national court to judiciously apply the Community law to specific case held for resolve. In conclusion, it is essential for national court for the community to understand the procedural measure under this rule. It should be understood that the Court of Justice is manned with legal luminaries with wider, broader and understanding of European Union laws. The mandate to interpret laws and validate acts of institutions simply intends to clarify and elucidate the meaning and intention in the crafting of specific laws used as basis in a legal dispute. It does not intend to usurp the function of the national court. It maintains to provide only guidance and advise, like an amicus curea although broader than that principle. It aims to elucidate, simplify and provide understanding on legislated laws. It does not bureaucratize the legal system. It is above all else, a procedure or methodical sharing of legal knowledge to wade off confusion and to ensure that justice is serve resolutely. REFERENCES Court of Justice ( 2009). Notices fromEuropean Union Insitution and Bodies. Official Journal of the European Union. C 297 (1-6.) Hargreaves: EU Law Concentrate Copyright © Oxford University Press, 2011. http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199587735/resources/answers_essays/ch03/ Read More