Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 144
August-September 2011
Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium - 3989/07
Judgment 20.9.2011 [Section II]
Article 6
Administrative proceedings
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Refusal by supreme courts to refer a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice: no violation
Facts – Refusal by the Court of Cassation and the Conseil d’Etat to refer questions relating to the interpretation of European Community law, raised in proceedings before those courts, to the Court of Justice of the European Communities (now the Court of Justice of the European Union) for a preliminary ruling.
Law – Article 6 § 1: The Court noted that in its CILFIT judgment*, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (“the Court of Justice”) had ruled that courts and tribunals against whose decisions there was no judicial remedy were not required to refer a question where they had established that it was not relevant or that the Community provision in question had already been interpreted by the Court of Justice, or where the correct application of Community law was so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. The Court further reiterated that the Convention did not guarantee, as such, any right to have a case referred by a domestic court to another national or international authority for a preliminary ruling. Where, in a given legal system, other sources of law stipulated that a particular field of law was to be interpreted by a specific court and required other courts and tribunals to refer to it all questions relating to that field, it was in accordance with the functioning of such a mechanism for the court or tribunal concerned, before granting a request to refer a preliminary question, to first satisfy itself that the question had to be answered before it could determine the case before it.
Nonetheless, Article 6 § 1 imposed an obligation on the national courts against whose decisions there was no judicial remedy under national law to give reasons, based on the exceptions provided for by the case-law of the Court of Justice, for any decision refusing to refer to the latter a preliminary question concerning the interpretation of European Union law, particularly where the applicable law permitted such a refusal only in exceptional circumstances. According to the CILFIT judgment, therefore, they had to state the reasons why they considered that the question was not relevant, that the provision of European Union law in question had already been interpreted by the Court of Justice or that the correct application of European Union law was so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. The Court observed that this requirement to give reasons had been complied with in the present case. The Court of Cassation had refused the request to refer the question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the grounds that the question whether the principle of the primacy of Community law should take precedence over the res judicata principle had already been the subject of a ruling by the Court of Justice, and had constructed a lengthy rationale based on the latter’s case-law. The Conseil d’Etat, for its part, had refused the request on the grounds that no reasonable doubt existed as to the inapplicability of the relevant provisions and that a ruling from the Court of Justice on the interpretation of other provisions of European Union law could not in any way affect the case before it.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
* Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health, Case 283/81, European Court Reports 1982, page 03415.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy