National Courts and Preliminary References to the Court of Justice

This innovative book examines why national courts refer preliminary references to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and what the referring court does with the answers. Jasper Krommendijk highlights the three core stages in the interaction between national courts and the ECJ: question, answer and follow-up, shedding new light on this under-explored area

CILFIT in Strasbourg

On 19 February 2024, the European Court of Human Rights decided not to answer the Estonian Supreme Court’s request for an advisory opinion on the basis of Protocol 16 (P16). For the first time, it dismissed a request because it did not concern a question of principle concerning the interpretation and application of ECHR rights. The decision is significant because the ECtHR provides clear contours as to what types of questions courts should (not) ask

The preliminary reference dance between the CJEU and Dutch courts in the field of migration

This article examines the relationship between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) based on a legal-empirical research consisting of interviews and a legal analysis of judgments. It empirically tests which factors shape (i) Dutch national courts’ motivations to refer a case to the CJEU, (ii) how the CJEU’s preliminary rulings are received and implemented by national courts, and (iii) the extent to which the reception of the CJEU’s preliminary ruling influences the national courts’ future decision to refer. This argument is presented through a case study in the field of migration law in the Netherlands (2013-2016). This article shows that earlier theories about judicial empowerment and bureaucratic politics, emphasising politico-strategic reasons for (non)referral, have a limited explanatory value in the context of migration. It is so despite the expectation that strategic reasons are particularly applicable in a highly Europeanised, judicialised and politicised field such as migration law. Judges primarily operate pragmatically when deciding to refer (or not) and when applying the requested CJEU judgments. Even though several national judges expressed criticism about the CJEU and some of its judgments, this has not affected them to such an extent that they felt discouraged from referring future cases or were reluctant to follow-up on CJEU judgments

National Courts and Preliminary References to the Court of Justice

This book has attempted to answer four questions relating to the different phases in the interaction between national courts and the ECJ in the context of the preliminary ruling procedure: question, answer and follow-up. The fourth question concerned the relationship between the answer (ie, the satisfaction of national judges with their interaction with the ECJ and the answers) and the question (ie, the motives of judges (not) to refer)