Question 1

What matters can be referred by national courts to the ECJ under Article 267 TFEU for a preliminary ruling?&#10;A) Matters concerning the validity of primary sources of EU law.&#10;B) Matters concerning the interpretation of the Treaties and the interpretation and validity of acts adopted by EU institutions.&#10;C) Matters concerning the validity of judgments of the ECJ.

Accepted Answer

Article 267 TFEU allows national courts to refer questions of interpretation and validity of EU law to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. This includes matters concerning the interpretation of the Treaties and the interpretation and validity of acts adopted by EU institutions. However, it does not allow for the referral of matters concerning the validity of judgments of the ECJ itself or the validity of primary sources of EU law.

Question 2

Why was the request for a preliminary ruling refused by the ECJ in Case 104/79 Foglia v Novello?&#10;A) The request was made outside the time limit for a reference to be made.&#10;B) There was no genuine dispute between the parties.&#10;C) Proceedings before the national referring court had already been terminated.

Accepted Answer

The request for a preliminary ruling was refused by the ECJ in Case 104/79 Foglia v Novello because there was no genuine dispute between the parties. The case involved a question of interpretation of European law, but the parties had already reached a settlement between themselves, making it unnecessary for the ECJ to provide a ruling.

Question 3

What is the meaning of the doctrine of&#10;A) The term means that the Commission must bring proceedings before the ECJ against a Member State when it is clear that a Member State has breached EU law.&#10;B) The doctrine means that Article 267 (3) TFEU imposes an obligation upon the courts of last instance to ask for a preliminary ruling each time the interpretation of EU law is at issue.&#10;C) The doctrine means that Article 267 (3) TFEU imposes no obligation upon the courts of last instance to ask for a preliminary ruling when the correct application of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to the manner in which the question raised should be resolved.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine referred to in choice C is known as the "acte clair" doctrine. It suggests that if the application of EU law is clear and leaves no room for reasonable doubt, the highest national courts are not obliged to refer the question to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. This is an exception to the general rule that courts of last instance must refer questions related to EU law to ensure consistent interpretation and application across the EU.

Question 4

What did the judgment in Case C-224/01 K&#10;A) That the Member State may be liable to be fined if an incomplete documentation file is sent to the ECJ when a national court makes a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU.&#10;B) That the Member State may be subject to a fine if the question referred to the ECJ is hypothetical.&#10;C) That the Member State may be liable for failure of its court of final instance to refer a case to the ECJ.

Accepted Answer

The judgment in Case C-224/01 K established that a Member State may be liable for the failure of its court of final instance to refer a case to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. The case involved a situation where a French court of final instance did not refer a case to the ECJ, leading to a violation of EU law. The judgment clarified that Member States have a duty to ensure that their courts refer cases to the ECJ when necessary, and may be held liable if this duty is not fulfilled. The judgment did not address incomplete documentation or hypothetical questions referred to the ECJ.

Question 5

What did the judgment in Case 314/85 Foto-Frost specify regarding the referral concerning validity of EU acts?&#10;A) Any national court can declare an EU act invalid by applying the tests developed by the ECJ.&#10;B) National courts have no power to declare an EU act invalid.&#10;C) Only the highest national courts can declare an EU act invalid.

Accepted Answer

The judgment in Case 314/85 Foto-Frost specified that national courts have no power to declare an EU act invalid. Only the ECJ has the power to give a definitive ruling on the validity of EU acts.

Deck 13: Preliminary Rulings: Article 267 TFEU