qpr-1-2013-foreword.pdf | Page 94

94 Monika Kirilova Kirova courts play a fundamental role in the application of Union law. Relations between CJEU and national courts in light of the ‘preliminary ruling procedure’ have been described as cooperative. However, certain flaws within the procedure have led to situations where the national courts have become reluctant to refer cases to the CJEU. In addition, although the CJEU is seeking cooperation, it shapes the manner of this cooperation, thus positioning itself as a superior court. The establishment of the Acte Clair1 doctrine and the introduction of State liability for judicial errors in Gerhard Köbler v Republic Österreich [2003] will be given as examples of the possible transformation of the relationship between the national courts and the CJEU. Preliminary Ruling Procedure – The Matter of Cooperation The relationship between the CJEU and the national courts has been well defined by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 2007 (TFEU). Under this Treaty provision, the CJEU has the jurisdiction to give rulings on questions of interpretation and validity of EU law at the request of a national court using the ‘preliminary ruling procedure’.2 The justification for this competence is found in the Report of the Court of Justice on Certain Aspects of the Application of the Treaty on European Union (1995: 11): [a]ny weakening... of the uniform application and interpretation of Community law throughout the Union would be liable to give rise to distortions of competition and discrimination between economic operators, thus jeopardizing equality of opportunity as between those operators and consequently the proper functioning of the internal market. 1 ‘Acte Clair’ – a doctrine in European law according to which cases involving a law with a reasonably obvious interpretation do not need to be referred to the CJEU. 2 When the CJEU gives a preliminary ruling, it only explains the meaning of a certain provision of law (or invalidates a provision, where needed), and does not give judgment; i.e. it does not decide upon the outcome of the dispute.