The Use of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure by Czech Courts: Historical Retrospective and Beyond

Václav Stehlík; David Sehnálek

doi:10.1515/bjes-2019-0041

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

The Use of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure by Czech Courts: Historical Retrospective and Beyond

TalTech Journal of European Studies

Volume 9 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

By: Václav Stehlík and David Sehnálek

Open Access

|Dec 2019

Abstract

The article analyses the use of the preliminary ruling procedure by the Czech courts in the 15 years of the Czech membership in the European Union. It presents statistics of cases lodged to the EU Court of Justice and refers to the most important decisions. The article compares the practise of both lower courts as well as courts of last instance, namely the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. It also outlines the attitude of the Czech Constitutional Court towards this procedure.

References

Balbiino AS v Põllumajandusminister and Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus [2009], ECJ C-560/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:341, 4.6.2009.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace-Svaz softwarové ochrany v. Ministerstvo kultury 82010], ECJ C-393/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:816, 22.12.2010.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bílková, J. (2013), ‘K temporálním dopadům rozsudku Evropského soudního dvora ve věci C-161/06 aneb opět Skoma-Lux a odpovědnost za škodu způsobenou při výkonu veřejné moci,’ Jurisprudence, no. 3, pp. 9–12.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bobek, M. (2011), ‘The multilingualism of the European Union law and the national courts: beyond the textbooks,’ in A. Kjaer, A. Lise & S. Adamo (eds.) Linguistic Diversity and European Democracy, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S157401961400104710.1017/S1574019614001047
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bobek, M. (2014), ‘Landtová, Holubec, and the problem of an uncooperative court: implications for the preliminary rulings procedure (April 29, 2014),’ European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 10, pp. 54–89.10.1017/S1574019614001047
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Budinska, B. & Vikarska, Z. (2017), ‘Judicial dialogue after Taricco II: who has the last word, in the end?’ EU Law Analysis, 7 December. Retrieved from http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/12/criminal-law-human-rights-and.html [accessed Jun 2019]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
CJEU (2019), Annual Report 2018, Luxembourg: Court of Justice of the European Union / Communications Directorate. Retrieved from https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-04/ra_pan_2018_en.pdf [accessed 15 Jun 2019]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2006), Cukerné kvóty, Judgement of the Constitutional Court, Pl. ÚS 50/04, ECLI:CZ:US:2006: Pl.ÚS.50.04.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2009), Pfizer, Judgement of the Constitutional Court, II. ÚS 1009/08, ECLI:CZ:US:2009:2.US.1009.08.2.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2012), Holubec, Judgement ÚS 5/12, 31.1.2012.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2014), Judgement of the Constitutional Court, II. ÚS 1248/13 ECLI:CZ:US:2014:2.US.1248.13.1.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2018), Československá obchodní banka, II. ÚS 3432/17, ECLI:CZ:US:2018:2.US.3432.17.1.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, OJ L 73, 15.3.1976.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.10.1093/ilj/23.1.92
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Council Regulation (EC) no. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Council Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) no. 1347/2000, OJ L 338, 23.12.2003.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Craig, P. & de Búrca, G. (2015), EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198714927.001.000110.1093/he/9780198714927.001.0001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Criminal proceedings against Ivo Taricco and Others [2015], ECJ C-105/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:555, 8.9.2015.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Criminal proceedings against Kenny Roland Lyckeslog [2002], ECJ C-99/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:329, 4.6.2002.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Criminal Proceedings against M.A.S. and M.B. [2017], ECJ C-42/17, ECLI:EU:C:2017:936, 5.12.2017.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
DAR Duale Abfallwirtschaft und Verwertung Ruhrgebiet [2010], ECJ C-299/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:299, 25.5.2010.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 299, 4.11.2003.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Evas, T. (2016), Judicial Application of European Union Law in post-Communist Countries: The Cases of Estonia and Latvia, London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131559075210.4324/9781315590752
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L. [1964], ECJ C-6/64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66, 15.7.1964.10.1088/0031-9112/15/3/009
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Forejtová, M. (2017), ‘Existují ještě otazníky nad odměnami za pracovní pohotovost zaměstnanců dle judikatury Soudního dvora EU?’ Právní proctor, 5 December. Retrieved from https://www.pravniprostor.cz/clanky/pracovni-pravo/dalsiotazniky-kolem-odmen-za-pracovni-pohotovost-zamestnancu-dle-judikatury-soudniho-dvora-eu [accessed 15 Jun 2019]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Georgiev, J. (2018), ‘The constitutional review of the OMT programme – the German case,’ in N. Šišková (ed.) The European Union – What is Next? Köln: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 165–176.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grmelová, N. (2014), ‘Nepoložení předběžné otázky Soudnímu dvoru Evropské unie jako porušení práva na spravedlivý process,’ Mezinárodní vztahy, no. 4, pp. 102–120.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hamuľák, O. (2011), ‘The Czech Constitutional Court and the question of an active use of the preliminary ruling procedure,’ in R. Somssich (ed.) Central and Eastern European Countries after and before the Accession, Volume 2. Budapest: ELTE, pp. 121–128.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hamuľák, O. (2014), ‘The unbearable lightness of being guardian of the Constitution (revolt and revolution dilemma in the approach of Czech Constitutional Court vis-à-vis EU and supranational legal order),’ European Studies: The Review of European Law, Economics and Politics, vol. 1, pp. 103–112.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hamuľák, O. (2015), ‘Lessons from the “constitutional mythology” or how to reconcile the concepts of state with European integration,’ DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1515/danb-2015-000510.1515/danb-2015-0005
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hamuľák, O.; Kopal, D. & Kerikmäe, T. (2016), ‘Walking a tightrope – looking back on risky position of German Federal Constitutional Court in OMT preliminary question,’ European Studies: The Review of European Law, economics and Politics, vol. 3, pp. 115–141.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hypoteční banka a.s. v. Udo Mike Lindner [2011], ECJ C-327/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:745, 17.11.2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jan Vorel v. Nemocnice Český Krumlov [2007], ECJ C-437/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:23.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jaremba, U. (2014), National Judges as EU Law Judges: The Polish Civil Law System, Leiden-Boson: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/978900426147110.1163/9789004261471
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Estado português [2015], ECJ C-160/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:565, 9.9.2015.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Komárek, J. (2012), ‘Czech constitutional court playing with matches: the Czech constitutional court declares a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU ultra vires; Judgment of 31 January 2012, Pl. ÚS 5/12, Slovak Pensions XVII,’ European Constitutional Law Review, no. 8, pp. 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019612000193
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Král, R. (2012), ‘Otazníky nad posledním nálezem Ústavního soudu ČR týkajícího se tzv. slovenských důchodů,’ Jurisprudence, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 28–33.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kustra, A. (2013), ‘The first preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union referred by Italian Corte Costituzionale, Spanish Tribunal Constitucional, and French Conseil Constitutionnel,’ Comparative Law Review, vol. 16, pp. 159–182. https://doi.org/10.12775/CLR.2013.02110.12775/CLR.2013.021
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kustra-Rogatka, A. (2019), ‘The Kelsenian model of constitutional review in times of European integration – reconsidering the basic features,’ International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–37. https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2019-000110.2478/iclr-2019-0001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Malenovský, J. (2016), ‘Ambivalentní komunikace a spolupráce Soudního dvora EU a ústavních soudů jejích členských států,’ in V. Göttinger (ed.) Book of Proceedings from International Conference European Constitutionalism in the Context of Judicial Dialogue, Brno: Ústavní soud, pp. 66–73.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Malenovský, J. (2019), ‘Protichůdné zájmy v řízení o předběžné otázce a jejich důsledky,’ Právní rozhledy, no. 6, pp. 191–197.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marián Baláž [2013], ECJ C-60/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:733, 14.11.2013.10.1365/s35128-013-0379-y
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Marie Landtová v. Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení [2011], ECJ C-399/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:415, 22.6.2011.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Milan Kyrian against Celní úřad Tábor [2010], ECJ C-233/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:11, 14.1.2010.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ministry of Finance (2016), Soustava soudů, Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic. Retrieved from https://www.psfv.cz/cs/reseni-sporu/soudni-rizeni/soustava-soudu [accessed 15 Jun 2019]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Navrátilová, M. (2008), ‘The preliminary ruling before the constitutional courts,’ in V. Týč (ed.) International and European Dimension of Law Applied by Institutions of Member States, Brno: Masaryk University, pp. 695–705.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v. Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co. KG and Reederei Friedrich Busse Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co. KG. [1982], ECJ C-102/81, ECLI:EU:C:1982:107, 23.3.1982.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963], ECJ C-26/62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1, 5.2.1963.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
OMT – Programme of the ECB (EZB) [2016], BvR 2728/13, 21.6.2016.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
OSA [2007], ECJ C-282/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:114, 26.2.2007.10.1190/tle26020114.1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Peter Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag [2015], ECJ C-62/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:400, 16.6.2015.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Piccirilli, G. (2018), ‘‘The ‘Taricco Saga’: The Italian Constitutional Court continues its European journey: Italian Constitutional Court, Order of 23 November 2016 no. 24/2017; Judgment of 10 April 2018 no. 115/2018 ECJ 8 September 2015, Case C-105/14, Ivo Taricco and Others; 5 December 2017, Case C-42/17, M.A.S. and M.B.,’ European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 814–833. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019618000433
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Regulation (EU) no. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 351, 20.12.2012.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reisebüro Bühler [2007], ECJ C-126/07, ECLI:EU:C:2007:477, 8.8.2007.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
RLRE Tellmer Property sro v. Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem [2009], ECJ C-572/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:365, 11.6.2009.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schermers, H. & Waelbroeck, D. (2001), Judicial Protection in the European Union, The Hague, London & New York: Kluwer Law International.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sehnálek, D. & Týč, V.et al. (2016), Soudní dvůr EU a výklad práva Evropské unie, Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Právnická fakulta.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Skoma-Lux sro v. Celní ředitelství Olomouc [2007], ECJ C-161/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:773, 11.12.2007.10.1016/S0306-3747(07)70056-8
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Skoma-Lux s. r. o. v. Celní ředitelství Olomouc [2010], ECJ C-339/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:781, 16.12.2010.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Špottová, K. (2016), Sága slovenských důchodů z pohledu konceptu evropeizace, Rigorous thesis, Brno: Masaryk University.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stehlík, V. (2011), ‘The obligatory preliminary ruling procedure and its enforcement in the Czech and Slovak legal order,’ UWM Law Review, no. 3, pp. 6–25.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stehlík, V. (2019a), ‘Constitutional review and the preliminary ruling procedure: Commentary on the CCB decision of the Czech Constitutional Court,’ Czech Yearbook of International Law, vol. 10, pp. 117–129.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stehlík, V. (2019b), ‘Ohlédnutí se (nejen) za řízením o předběžné otázce v prvních 15 letech členství České republiky v Evropské unii,’ in N. Rozehnalová et al. (eds.) In varietate concordia: soubor vědeckých statí k poctě prof. Vladimíra Týče, Brno: Masaryk University, pp. 347–366.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stehlík, V. & Hamuľák, O.et al. (2014), Unijní právo před českými soudy, Praha: Leges.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Telefónica O2 Czech Republic a.s. v. Czech On Line a.s. [2007], ECJ C-64/06 ECLI:EU:C:2007:348, 14.6.2007.10.1016/S1365-6937(07)70202-2
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tomášek, M. & Týč, V.et al. (2013), Právo Evropské unie, Praha: Leges.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Toshiba Corporation and other v. Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže [2012], ECJ C-17/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:72, 14.2.2012.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wiener S.I. GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich [1997], ECJ C-338/95, ECLI:EU:C:1997:352, 20.11.1997.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v. SEWAR spol. s r. o. [2012], ECJ C-514/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:367, 21.6.2012.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ynos kft v. János Varga [2006], ECR I-371, C-302/04, 10.1.2006.10.1016/S1087-0792(06)00086-4
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zemánek, J. (2016) ‘České ústavní soudnictví v evropském ústavním prostoru,’ in V. Göttinger (ed.) Book of Proceedings from International Conference European Constitutionalism in the Context of Judicial Dialogue, Brno: Ústavní soud, pp. 88–99.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Žondra, M. (2010), ‘Reference to preliminary rulings lodged by Czech courts, 2004–2009,’ in Czech Yearbook of International Law, vol. 1, pp. 269–299.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article