In a judgment (case C-767/23) handed down on Tuesday, 24 March, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that a national court or tribunal of last instance must always justify its refusal to refer a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.
A Moroccan national, whose wife and children live in the Netherlands and are Dutch nationals, challenged a Dutch court’s refusal to grant him a residence permit valid throughout the EU on the grounds that he already has a residence permit in Spain.
The matter was brought before the Dutch Council of State, which did not believe that it was required to refer the case to the CJEU in order to rule on the dispute—considering European case law to be clear in answering the question of EU law that was raised. It justified its decision in a summary manner, as permitted by the [Dutch] national law on foreign nationals in order to ensure the justice system is functioning properly.
In its judgment, the CJEU reiterates that a supreme court or tribunal may only be released from its obligation to refer the matter for a preliminary ruling in three situations: cases where the question of EU law that is raised is not relevant, cases where the provision of EU law that is in question has already been interpreted by the Court [of Justice], and cases where this interpretation is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the European court is of the opinion that if a court or tribunal of last instance does not refer the matter to the Court [of Justice] on account of one of these three exceptions, its decision must—in all cases—be justified and set out, in concrete terms, the reasons why one of these three exceptions applies based on the factual and legal circumstances. It stresses that the fact that an EU country allows a court or tribunal to resort to summary reasoning does not change anything.
In addition, the Court [of Justice] explains that a supreme court or tribunal may appropriate the grounds relied on by the lower court in the dispute in question, provided that the lower court has set out the reasons why one of the three aforementioned exceptions applies.
See the judgment of the Court of Justice: https://aeur.eu/f/lbm (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)