چکیده:
One of the legal tools used by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its jurisdictional system is the preliminary ruling on the basis of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. According to this rule, the national courts can ask the Court to respond about the interpretation and correct way of applying a European law in a european country, with the aim of removing doubts and perplexities. This process ends with the enactment of a preliminary ruling by the Court. If the request for a preliminary ruling by the lower national courts is a consolidated fact, on the other hand the same can not be said for the requests of the Constitutional Courts, which have not reached a common view on the subject. In this article, in addition to the description of the cases of references for preliminary rulings of the Constitutional Courts of countries such as Italy, France, Spain and Germany before the Court of Justice of the European Union, we will try to understand the events concerning these referrals and mutual approaches held by the courts with particular attention to the approach of national Constitutional Courts.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In this article, while explaining some of the most important cases raised in Italy, France, Spain, and Germany, the issues related to the referral of the aforementioned European constitutional courts to the Court of Justice of the European Union for the issuance of preliminary rulings and the way these authorities interact, with a focus on the approach of courts protecting domestic constitutions, are examined.
the interpretation of this rule and the issuance of a preliminary ruling, the French Constitutional Council referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and this institution, in ruling number 168 issued in 2013, announced that the law under review does not specify a particular procedure for exercising the right of appeal, but member states can supplement this law through amendments (C-168/13, 2013: 37-38 Points).
It is worth mentioning that not all judges of the Spanish Constitutional Court agreed with the submission of this institution to the Court of Justice; for example, Judge Andrés Ollero Tassara1 explicitly states in his opinion that accepting the superiority of European Union law is acceptable only as long as the fundamental principles of the legal system and the Spanish Constitution are not called into question (Voto concurrente: 2014, 3 Point, Corte Constitucional); and this shows that the aforementioned ruling in Spain was controversial and debatable, and was issued mainly to satisfy the judges of the European Court and to avoid creating challenges at the Union level, rather than necessarily being based on a strong legal basis (Colson, Field, 2016: 174).
(
, 
, 
)
