Admisibilitatea formulării în apel a unei cereri de sesizare a CJUE cu o întrebare preliminară, în situația neatacării încheierii tribunalului de respingere a unei astfel de cereri de sesizare a CJUE
The admissibility of submitting a request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union at the appellate stage where the first-instance Court's Order refusing such a reference was not challenged

Summary/Abstract: The article examines the judgment delivered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal holding that a party is not required to separately challenge the interlocutory ruling by which the first-instance court rejected a request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The study argues that such a solution is fully consistent with Article 267 TFEU, the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU, and the settled case-law of the CJEU regarding the autonomous nature of the preliminary reference mechanism.Relying on the judgments in Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf (C-166/73), Cartesio (C-210/06), CILFIT (C-283/81), Foto-Frost (C-314/85), as well as the recent Romanian cases Asociația „Forumul Judecătorilor din România”, Euro Box Promotion and RS, the article demonstrates that the procedure established by Article 267 TFEU constitutes a mechanism of direct judicial cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, which cannot be restricted by excessive domestic procedural formalism.The paper further argues that an appellate court does not review the lower court’s refusal to make a preliminary reference, but rather exercises its own autonomous jurisdiction conferred directly by the EU Treaties. Consequently, requiring a party to file a separate appeal against the interlocutory refusal to refer questions to the CJEU would render the preliminary reference mechanism ineffective and would undermine the effectiveness of EU law.

• Details
• Contents