Instytucja orzeczeń wstępnych trybunału sprawiedliwości wspólnot europejskich
The institution of preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities

Summary/Abstract: The paper is intended to introduce one of several types of rulings issued by the Court of Justice: the preliminary ruling. The goal was to contribute to the knowledge and better understanding of this institution by defining the prerequisites for admissibility, analysing the mechanism of issuance and operation, and showing the essence and effects of the preliminary ruling. The attempt to present the issues associated with this institution has shown the breadth of the problem.When reading the various pieces of literature on preliminary rulings, it is hard not to notice that the doctrine makes different assessments of the role played by the institution of preliminary rulings. According to B. Schloch, the preliminary ruling procedure under Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Community is of paramount importance for the uniform application of Community law in the entire European Union. In his opinion, it will continue to contribute to the good cooperation between the domestic courts of the Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Communities.However, there are sceptical opinions in the doctrine about the role played by the institution of preliminary rulings. As P. Craig and G. de Burca point out, the Court of Justice is not a fully developed federal appellate supreme court in the formal as well as institutional sense. Moreover, in a procedural sense, individuals still do not have the right to appeal to the Court of Justice, and national courts can decide whether an inquiry is necessary. The authors also criticize the fact that the Court’s preliminary rulings are issued only on matters of interpretation and examination of the validity of acts.Despite the criticisms, however, one must acknowledge that the procedure for issuing preliminary rulings is one of the most important procedures developed by the law of the European Communities. With this institution, the Luxembourg Court has the fullest possibility to give proper direction to the development of Community law. During the nearly half a century of operation by means of references for a preliminary ruling, many principles have been formulated that constitute the foundation of the entire legal system of the European Communities today. Through the use of this institution, the Court has, among other things, pointed out the self-limitation of the sovereignty of the Member States (Costa v. ENEL), recognized the primacy of the Community law over subsequent national law (Simmenthal), and articulated the principle of direct effect of certain Community norms (Van Gend en Loos). The Court would probably not have been able to develop the above principles without the procedure set forth in Article 234 of the TEC,which is one of the most frequent procedures in cases pending before the Court of Justice. The fact that this procedure concerns a very practical aspect of the operation of the Court of the European Communities has certainly contributed to its success. This is because it can, by providing an answer, contribute to the settlement of a dispute that is pending before a national court between individuals, companies, as well as between a private entity and a state body.The biggest advantage of the preliminary ruling procedure seems to be the fact that the supranational Court is integrated into the judicial system of individual Member States by the combination with the national procedure and the conclusive, and simultaneously binding, final ruling of the national court. This is because in the matter concerned by the preliminary ruling the Court issues only a judgment that contains its position and the national court is obliged, when issuing its closing judgment, to take into account the Court’s judgment in accordance with Article 234 of the TEC. In the decision of their court, the parties to the proceedings receive an enforcement title in the form defined. However, one should bear in mind that the enforcement of the Court’s monopoly of interpretation rests solely with national courts, which decide, mainly by their willingness to submit and take into account the binding opinion of the Court in their judgments, whether proceedings under Article 234 of the TEC will be successful in a legal and procedural sense.The considerations carried out, which are based on the extensive jurisprudence of the Luxembourg Court, testify to the Court’s keen interest in this issue and its willingness to clarify unclear or even disputed issues in order to make it work better. An example of this is the issue of delimitation of the scope of competence between the Court and national courts, which arises in the operation of this institution. These doubts have given rise to clarifications by the CJ in its case law and in the “Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings” issued on its basis.Based on an analysis of a number of rulings issued by the CJ, it can be concluded that the Court attaches great importance to the understanding of the preliminary ruling procedure not so much as a kind of appeal to a higher instance, but as a dialogue between equals. Also, it should be noted that the Commission decides to initiate a procedure under Article 226 of the TEC in connection with the failure of national courts to respect the content of the Court’s preliminary rulings only in exceptional cases. This has created an atmosphere of cooperation between the national courts of the Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Communities.Over the years, the institution of preliminary rulings has undergone some changes.The range of cases submitted to the Court has expanded. The General Court is the judicial body to which the Treaty of Nice assigned competence in the area of preliminary rulings. However, there are proposals for further changes to the justice system, including ones concerning the institution of preliminary rulings. These changes appear to be inevitable due to the increasing number of requests for responses received by the TS and the resulting longer processing time.With Poland’s accession to the European Union, the problem of application of the institution of references for preliminary rulings was faced by Polish courts. However, there is a real concern that during the initial period after the accession, the application of this procedure may cause numerous difficulties, and it is therefore to be expected that the Polish justice system will not initially make frequent use of the benefits of this institution. However, one should hope that this will change in the long run.

• Details
• Contents