Deliberative judicial supranationalism and ECJ references Sample Clauses

Deliberative judicial supranationalism and ECJ references. In the absence of a formal EU institutional set-up or common decision (“deliberative judicial supranationalism”), it will be left to the ECJ (on a somewhat firmer Treaty footing) to renegotiate the currently subsisting settlement with the superior courts of the Member States. This is based on the provisions of Art. 267 TFEU and its interpretation by the ECJ. According to Art. 267(3) TFEU, “a court or tribunal of a Member State, against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law … shall [refer to] the Court of Justice”175 questions concerning the interpretation of a provision of European law. The purpose of Art. 267(3) TFEU according to the ECJ176 is “to prevent a body of national case law not in accord with the rules of Community law from coming into existence in any Member State.” This obligation on courts of last instance is subject to the exceptions set out in the ECJ’s ruling in CILFIT,177 building on previous case-law. XXXXXX has accordingly sought to achieve a “reasonable balance” between the need to avoid unnecessary references and the need to ensure the uniform application of European law.178 According to XXXXXX, a last instance court (e.g., a constitutional court) is not required to make an Art. 267 TFEU reference: (1) where the question of interpretation is irrelevant; (2) where the ECJ has already ruled on the point (acte éclairé);179 or (3) 172 <xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx>. 12 January 2009. 173 <xxxx://xxxxxx.xxx.xxx>. 12 January 2009. 174 See generally X. Xxxxxxx, “Globalization of Constitutional Law through Interactions of Judges” (2008) Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 51, at 52ff; and X. Xxxxxxxx, “Multilevel Cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts. Der Europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund” (2010) 6 EuConst 175, at 196-198. 175 Emphasis supplied. 176 Case 107/76 Xxxxxxxx-Xx Xxxxx XX x. Centrafarm Vertriebsgesellschaft Pharmazeutischer Erzeugnisse mbH [1977] ECR 957, at para. 5. 177 Case 283/81 CILFIT v. Ministero xxxxx Xxxxxx [1982] ECR 3415. 178 Opinion of Xxxxxxx, XX in Case C-99/00 Lyckeskog v. Åklagarkammeren i Uddevalla [2002] ECR I-4839, at para. 56. 179 Joined Cases 28-30/62, Da Costa en Xxxxxxx [1963] ECR 31. where, in a case, the interpretation of European law is self evident, i.e., the point of law is clear and free from doubt (acte clair). However, the ECJ warned national courts that:180 Before it comes to the conclusion that such is the case, the national court or tribunal must be convinced that ...