European Union Court of Justice and the National Courts - Essay Example

? European Union Court of Justice and the National Courts To what extent is it accurate to assert that the Court of Justice of the European Union, under the auspices of the preliminary ruling procedure in Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), has developed a hierarchical relationship between itself and the national courts of the member states of the European Union? The Court of Justice of the European Union was established in order to successfully implement the EU law across all the European Member States. However, due to certain inconsistencies and misrepresentation of EU Law principles it became mandatory to introduce Preliminary Ruling Procedure. This procedure was based upon the Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TEFU). Although the authorization of this process has reduced the ambiguity of legal principles but on the other hand it has turned the relationship between CJEU and National Courts into a hierarchy. This implies that the European Court of Justice has greater authority and supremacy over the national courts especially in case of Preliminary Ruling Procedure. This paper aims to critically analyze and evaluate the functioning of CJEU and the hierarchical relationship between itself under the patronage of Article 267 in TFEU and the National Courts. The Couth of Justice of the European Union The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) aims to equally implementation the EU law in all the countries which come under the European Union. Additionally, it is responsible to resolve the legal disagreements primarily between the EU institutions and the government. Organizations operating in the EU region along with the individuals can also make an appeal to the CJEU if they find that their rights are violated by the legal institutions. In order to comprehend the critical nature of hierarchical relationship between CJEU and the national courts of the member states it is important to first analyze the functionality of European Union Court of Justice1. CJEU appoints one judge in every EU country who is assisted by different advocate-generals. These advocates are responsible to give their opinions and remarks on the cases and appeals which are made to the court. However, all their activities must be presented in public without any biasness. The group of judge and advocate-generals is selected for a period of six years2. This time period can be extended as per the legal and political circumstances. The selections are usually made by the ruling governments in the EU countries. In order to smooth the activities of the court and to easily resolve huge number of cases, a General Court is made to deal with all the cases of European citizens and organizations. These cases are typically related to the competition law. The dispute between the European Union and its personnel is resolved by the EU Civil Service Tribunal3. In broader terms, the CJEU is responsible to deal with the following types of cases4: Appeals related to Preliminary Ruling In this case the national courts requests the European Union Court of Justice to interpret and illustrate an article or any other point related to the EU law. European Union has established national courts in EU countries which are fundamentally in charge of ensuring that the EU Law is implemented in all states. However, a risk of misinterpretation always remains there in such cases. For instance, there are significant chances that the national courts might interpret the EU law in an entirely different way. In order to avoid such situations the EU Law has introduced a preliminary ruling procedure. According to this procedure, the representatives of the national court are now required to ask for the advice of CJEU if in case they are doubtful about certain EU laws and their implementations. The requirement of asking for advice which is also known as ‘preliminary ruling’ is sometimes mandatory to validate the actions. Deed or failure to accomplish an obligation When national courts identify that the EU law is not practiced by the EU Governments then they make an appeal to the CJEU for the failure of fulfilling an obligation. The established commission is able to begin the legal procedures if it finds out that the member country is unable to accomplish its duties and obligations assigned under the EU Law. However, in some situations the legal proceedings may also be initiated by some other EU country. Whatever the case may be, the CJEU is responsible to make investigations against all the accusations. Thereafter it is required to give its judgment. If the accused is found to be guilty then the court must resolve all the conflicts. The court is also allowed to fine the indicted country. Actions for termination These cases are brought to the court when the EU laws are found to be violated in terms of basic rights or EU Treaties. If in case any of the commissions, the EU council and EU countries or Parliament identifies that an EU Law is has been implemented wrongly or it is entirely illegal then they may ask the CJEU to terminate it. This is often termed as the ‘Actions for Annulment’ and these can also be utilized by general individuals who are either directly or indirectly getting affected by the law. CJEU has to complete authority to cancel different laws if they are found to be unsuccessful or wrongly adopted by different treaties. Actions for wrong decisions These appeals are made against the EU institutions when they fail to implement the required decisions. The Treaty ensures that the Council, Commission or the Parliament make decisions consistent with the EU law and the given circumstances. But if they are unable to do so then the community institutions, member countries, organizations or even individuals in some cases are allowed to make an appeal against the wrong decisions. These are then officially recorded and analyzed. Direct Actions When European organizations or individuals residing within the territory find inconsistency in EU decisions and actions then these cases are brought to the CJEU. This is primarily responsible to safeguard an individual or organization that has undergone a damage or loss in consequences of an inaction or action by the representatives of the law. In this situation the community or staff members are allowed to seek compensation from CJEU. Preliminary Ruling Procedure As discussed above that the Preliminary Ruling Procedure is particularly used when EU Law is questioned about its implementations. In this situation a tribunal or national court makes a recommendation to the European Court of Justice so as to either facilitate the national court or to receive the ruling. Hence, questions and queries pertaining to EU law are then put forward to the legal authorities of different European Member States5. The primary function of this entire procedure is to make sure that the EU law is validated and interpreted correctly all over the European Union. Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) plays a signification role in preliminary ruling because the fundamentals of this procedure are stated in this article. For instance, the article explains preliminary ruling as “the position where a legal appeal is put before the tribunal or court of EU Member States, the court has the authority of considering a decision followed by judgment on the question”. Hence, according to the Article 267 TFEU the Court of Justice only accepts those questions which it considers to be resolved6. Moreover, the Court is strictly required to pass its judgment if it has accepted the questions pertaining to the EU law. In general cases the lower courts have prudence in selection of making references to the European Court of Justice but the Article 267 TFEU eliminates all such discretions. This particularly happens in the situation of final appeals. One of the basic characteristics of preliminary ruling is that it is solely based upon the mutual collaboration between the European Court of Justice and National Courts. However, CJEU is primarily responsible to control this mutual collaboration while setting all its terms and conditions. For instance, when a ‘dialogue’ is set between CJEU and national courts then CJEU has prominent dominance over national courts7. Moreover, it has thrived in appointing the national courts in to the Judiciary System of European Union. This is one of the most significant factors which represent the relationship between CJEU and national courts in a hierarchy. Additionally, when it comes to the practice of Labor Courts established in the EU Member States then it can be clearly identified that the use of preliminary ruling differs greatly on the basis of procedures followed. Although the Article 267 TFEU has presented a uniform list of requirements but still the orientations made by National Labor Courts are prominently different among Member States of the European Union. This further illustrates that the declaration of hierarchical relationship between national courts and CJEU on the basis of preliminary ruling is fairly justified8. The European Court of Justice has been very susceptible to the charge of seizing the duties and responsibilities of national courts when it comes to decision making. Here, the methodology adopted by the CJEU is complex enough to generate problems. The basic aim of CJEU is to put down the EU Law and its principles while leaving the implementation of these principles on the authorities in national courts. Hence the boundaries are often full of ambiguity because a certain principle in EU Law can only be defined in two ways i.e. either it is fully explained which leaves no decision making authority to the national courts or the principle is defined with such vagueness that it provides the national courts with some guidance only. Since in both the cases CJEU remains superior over the national courts therefore the preliminary relationship is in hierarchical form9. This can be better understood with the help of EU law cases discussing industrial relations and employment. For instance, CJEU has set up a principle which states that the indirect bias is reasonable on the basis of objectives which must also be consistent with the generally accepted proportionality principle. However, in this situation the national court is responsible to decide over the objectivities and proportionality10. The principles of preliminary ruling procedure are scrutinized whenever CJEU deals with the cases of indirect taxation where the novel framework impacts the hermeneutic criterion utilized by the Court’s decision makers. The example of indirect taxation clearly represents the change in policy adopted by CJEU in order to present a hierarchical model of justice which is significantly different from the cooperative model. Moreover, it can be said that the CJEU’s traditional functions associated with the preliminary ruling procedure are replaced by the principles of national Supreme Court11. Initially the preliminary ruling procedure was established on the basis of arms equality. This means that the jurisdictional association between the CJEU and the national courts gives the freedom of performing tasks. For instance, each court is allowed to independently manage its duties while on the other hand the CJEU is responsible to interpret the EU law. Hence the preparation of questions pertaining to the preliminary references is strictly hold by the national courts. The constructive cooperation is a new model which involves a hierarchical element in order to strengthen the obligations and performances of CJEU as a legal entity. This gives CJEU a role which closely resembles to the National Supreme Court12. The Case 26/6213 incorporates the basic judgments of CJEU. It introduces the principle of Direct Effect i.e. EU can establish rights which are applicable in national courts after the approval of certain criteria. Research reveals that there is a very close association between Supremacy and Direct Effect. However, supremacy was not confirmed by the European Court of Justice until the Case 6/6414. This case proved to be a challenge for the Jurisdiction and motivated CJEU to establish the supremacy principle. According to this principle if the member state acknowledges the legal obligation on the international level then they must be able to translate those principles into their routine practice either through judiciary or other means. The principle of Supremacy is significant in terms of maintaining uniformity of the EU Law and legal edifice. The fundamental of supremacy principle are clearly addressed in the Article 267 which further strengthens the hierarchical relationship between CJEU and national courts. Furthermore, the Article 267 states an obligation that any case which has no judicial remedies at the national level must be directed to the CJEU. For instance, in the case of Costa v ENEL, the defendant’s right to make an appeal was rejected because an insignificant amount of money was involved in the disagreement. In Case 32/7515, there was a critical question presented to the court i.e. whether or not the discounted ticket of rail should be amounted to tax advantage or social tax. It was decided that the discount should be amounted to tax advantage although the CJEU have stated that such cases cannot be resolved by national courts. In such circumstances the national court is allowed to only accept the judgment of CJEU and implement it instead of looking into the law interpretation. Hence it can be said that understanding the difference between interpretation and application is substantial to declare the hierarchical relationship between CJEU and national courts since it can be easily figured out that CJEU actually encourages the application of its judgments rather than simply giving an interpretation16. This further illustrates its supremacy in the relationship. Conclusion EU law cannot be enforced only with the participation of EU courts rather it calls to form a mutual relationship between the European Court of Justice and the national courts. But since different members of the European Union were interpreting the EU law in an entirely different way therefore the preliminary ruling procedure was introduced so as to make the legal interpretations easily applicable. The preliminary ruling procedure is based upon the Article 267 of TFEU which grants supremacy to CJEU. Hence this relationship is declared as hierarchical in nature. Research indicates that despite of the fact that the relationship between CJEU and national courts is hierarchical in nature, the preliminary ruling procedure has qualified to become the most regularly used conduit to reach the European Court of Justice. It plays a substantial role in maintaining uniformity of European Union Law across all the states. However, for its better implementation and profound performance it is important for the CJEU to clearly communicate its fundamental principles while constructing the Court of Justice. Moreover, CJEU must restrict itself to making illustrations only rather than influencing the application of law principles in the national courts. Bibliography Anton RG, “Indirect Taxation and the role of European Court of Justice within the Preliminary Reference Procedure” (2013) 5 LIM 38. Bilka-Kaufhaus and Hartz, Case 170/84, [1986] ECR 1607. Cini M and Borragan NP, European Union Politics (Oxford University Press 2013) 178. ‘Court of Justice of the European Union’ (European Union) accessed 5th November 2013. Fiorini (nee Cristini) v Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais, Case 32/75, [1975] ECR 1085. Flaminio Costa v ENEL, Case 6/64 [1964] ECR 585. ‘Preliminary Reference Procedure’ (Eurofound, 5 May 2011) accessed 5th November 2013. Van Gend en Loos, Case 26/62, [1963] ECR 13 Read More