10.15166/2499-8249/558
https://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/cilfit-criteria-clarified-and-extended-for-national-courts-of-last-resort
2499-8249
Maher, Imelda
Imelda
Maher
University College Dublin - UDC Sutherland School of Law
The CILFIT Criteria Clarified and Extended for National Courts of Last Resort Under Art. 267 TFEU
European Papers (www.europeanpapers.eu)
2022
preliminary reference
national courts of last resort
CILFIT
acte clair
giving reasons
obligation to refer
2022-05-26
European Papers Jean Monnet Network
eng
European Forum Insight
text/html
PDF
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(1), 265-274
I. Introduction. - II. Context: two preliminary references and the need to prove relevance. - III. The Advocate General opinion. - IV. The nature and scope of art. 267 TFEU. - IV.1. The uniformity of EU law. - IV.2. The tension between power and obligation. - IV.3. CILFIT confirmed and tweaked. - IV.4. A new requirement: giving reasons. - IV.5. The obligation to refer where a matter is raised late in proceedings. - V. Conclusion.
A significant judgment of the Grand Chamber of the CJEU was handed down in case C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management e Catania Multiservizi and Catania Multiservizi ECLI:ECLI:EU:C:2021:799 (CIM) in October 2021 on the scope of discretion of national courts of last resort when deciding to make a preliminary reference under art. 267 TFEU. Despite the invitation of the Advocate General, the Court shored up the (almost) 40-year-old CILFIT (case 283/81 CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità ECLI:EU:C:1982:335) test, giving clarification as to the aims of art. 267 TFEU and setting down an obligation to give reasons when not referring as a means of containing national court discretion by increasing transparency. The Court, by retaining the CILFIT test while tweaking it and adding a requirement to give reasons for refusal to refer, chose partnership and judicial cooperation with national apex courts while increasing transparency for decision-making thereby favouring the existing vision of the relationship with courts of last resort as one of direct cooperation.