96
Monika Kirilova Kirova
can be found in Abbey National Plc &Ors v The Office of Fair Trading
[2009], where it was held that the public interest4 in resolving the dispute
heavily outweighed the need to make a reference.
Moreover, some of the CJEU’s rulings are quite laconic and abstract.
Bobek (2008: 1641) warns that such rulings could be annulled due to
the lack of reasoning, had they been created in a national court. An illustration of this point is the case of O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur SA [2008],
where the ambiguity of the CJEU’s answer led to a request for second
reference. More significantly, as mentioned by Lord Mance (2013: 445),
out of all five judges hearing O’Byrne v Aventis Pasteur SA [2008], only
one, Lord Rodger, seemed to be able to correctly grasp the CJEU’s point
from the first reference.
Although English courts have not yet explicitly rejected the idea of cooperation, the above examples prove their lack of enthusiasm for engaging
in a dialogue with the CJEU. Indeed, they might still participate in cooperation solely because they are supposed to take part in the development
of the Community legal order due to the United Kingdom’s membership
of the European Union. Moreover, Arnull (2010: 81) suggests that they
simply do not wish to oppose Parliament’s will to be part of the Community.
Taking into an account the flaws of the preliminary ruling procedure, it is
suggested that other, more effective ways of ensuring the unified application of European Union law should be adopted. Sabel and Gerstenberg
(2010: 513) propose the coordinated constitutional order approach as a
possible solution. This approach commits national courts and supranational tribunals to mutual monitoring, acceptance and adjusting to the
Unlike cases where only certain individuals will be concerned, this decision has the
potential to affect many people, because it considered the lawfulness of banks’ fees for
unauthorised overdraft.
4