1.029 citiri

Hotărârea Krizan a CJUE ne arată că instanțele de drept comun pot ignora deciziile curții constituționale atunci când le consideră contrare dreptului Uniunii

Numerous examples show that when ordinary courts dislike constitutional courts’ interpretation of the national constitution, including constitutionally protected fundamental rights, they can contest it through a preliminary reference to the ECJ. The power of ordinary courts vis-a-vis constitutional courts has been recently reinforced by the ECJ’s rulings in Melki and Abdeli, Križan and A. Melki and Abdeli and A undermine the priority of national constitutional courts’ constitutional review, whereas Križan makes it possible for ordinary courts to ignore decisions of constitutional courts which they find contrary to EU law. The pressure from ordinary courts can in fact explain the present willingness of national constitutional courts to refer preliminary questions to the ECJ: rather than being challenged or circumvented by ordinary courts that use the ECJ and the preliminary reference procedure instrumentally in a domestic judicial conflict, constitutional courts choose to cooperate, „If you can’t beat them, join them!”, one might say. (s.n.  – M.M.-B.)

Jan Komárek
(Why National Constitutional Courts Should not Embrace EU Fundamental Rights în The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as a Binding Instrument (coord. Stephen Weatherill, Sybe de Vries, Ulf Bernitz), Hart, 2015, la p.76 – pentru versiunea disponibilă gratuit pe SSRN, a se vedea AICI)

Back To Top