Search

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(1), 265-274 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Context: two preliminary references and the need to prove relevance. - III. The Advocate General opinion. - IV. The nature and scope of art. 267 TFEU. - IV.1. The uniformity of EU law. - IV.2. The tension between power and obligation. - IV.3. CILFIT confirmed and tweaked. - IV.4. A new requirement: giving reasons. - IV.5. The obligation to refer where a matter is raised late in proceedings. - V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) A significant judgment of the Grand Chamber of the CJEU was handed down in case C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management e Catania Multiservizi and Catania Multiservizi ECLI:ECLI:EU:C:2021:799 (CIM) in October 2021 on the scope of discretion of national courts of last resort when deciding to make a preliminary reference under art. 267 TFEU. Despite the invitation of the Advocate General, the Court shored up the (almost) 40-year-old CILFIT (case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità ECLI:EU:C:1982:335) test, giving clarification as to the aims of art. 267 TFEU and setting down an obligation to give reasons when not referring as a means of containing national court discretion by increasing transparency. The Court, by retaining the CILFIT test while tweaking it and adding a requirement to give reasons for refusal to refer, chose partnership and judicial cooperation with national apex courts while increasing transparency for decision-making thereby favouring the existing vision of the relationship with courts of last resort as one of direct cooperation.

In its judgment in Consorzio Italian Management, the Court of Justice has gone some way to solving the riddle that since the beginning of European integration has remained one of the most important and widely discussed doctrines of EU law: one that concerns the obligation of national courts of last instance to refer questions of interpretation of EU law for a preliminary ruling to the Court. The doctrine in question concerns exceptions to this obligation, solidified four decades ago in the landmark CILFIT ruling. More specifically, one exception to the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference is found in situations where the meaning of a provision of EU law is clear beyond reasonable doubt. This contribution discusses whether and how the Court’s ruling in Consorzio Italian Management adjusts and recalibrates this particular exception, which despite the name it was usually referred to – ‘acte clair’ – still remains unclear. To explain what, if anything, changes after Consorzio Italian Management, the discussion will go back to the origins of the doctrine of ‘acte clair’, initially pronounced in CILFIT.

The present paper presents the obligation that courts in the member states of the European Union have to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, with a focus on courts against whose decision there is no judicial remedy under national law. The paper starts by presenting the applicable framework regarding the preliminary reference procedure, then focuses on analyzing the exceptions to national court’s duty under article 267 TFEU, with a focus on the direction in which the case law is heading based on the most recent judgments handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2015, finally presenting the author’s conclusions and observation on the subject.