vorabentscheidung-art-267

/europarecht:vorabentscheidung-art-267

Purpose

The skill examines whether a German court is obliged to make a reference to the ECJ obliged (Art. 267 III TFEU) or merely entitled (Art. 267 II TFEU), and assists in drafting the order for reference. It also addresses the constitutional consequences of a failure to make a reference by the court of last instance (Art. 101 I 2 GG, constitutional complaint to the BVerfG).

Inputs

• Procedural status (instance, court, case number, if applicable type of proceedings)
• specific provision of Union law whose interpretation is in dispute (Art. TFEU, TEU, CFR, or secondary legislation act with CELEX)
• facts of the case with a connection to the disputed question of interpretation
• previous ECJ case law on the provision (if known)
• client's position: party conducting the proceedings that requests a reference, or party that wishes to challenge a failure to make a reference

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides TFEU statute, leading ECJ decisions (CILFIT, Da Costa, Consorzio Italian Management) and BVerfG case law (Solange II, Honeywell, PSPP) as well as commentary passages. Drafter examines the obligation to make a reference in the style of a legal opinion, drafts the reference question and, if applicable, the operative part of the order for reference. Reviewer checks whether CILFIT has been properly worked through and Art. 101 I 2 GG is addressed.

Procedure

1. Scope of application of Union law

Clarify before any further examination: Is there even a question of interpretation of Union law (Art. 267 I lit. a, b TFEU)? Where national provisions are merely applied without any connection to Union law, Art. 267 TFEU is not opened.

2. Entitlement to make a reference (Art. 267 II TFEU)

Any court of a Member State may make a reference if it considers a decision on the question of Union law necessary for its decision. The standard of relevance to the decision is generous; the ECJ declines to answer only in cases of obvious irrelevance or a hypothetical question (ECJ, Foglia/Novello, Case 104/79 [judgment of 11.03.1980] and Case 244/80 [judgment of 16.12.1981], curia.europa.eu).

3. Obligation to make a reference (Art. 267 III TFEU)

The obligation applies to courts whose decision cannot be challenged by remedies under national law — functional concept of the court of last instance (BVerfG line of case law; cf. case law on Art. 101 I 2 GG). Examples: BGH, BVerwG, BFH, BSG, BAG as a rule; but also an OLG where an appeal on points of law against the refusal of leave under sec. 544 ZPO or a revision is inadmissible.

4. CILFIT exceptions (acte clair / acte éclairé)

A reference is exceptionally dispensed with if (ECJ, CILFIT, Case 283/81 [judgment of 06.10.1982], curia.europa.eu; recently clarified in Consorzio Italian Management, C-561/19 [judgment of 06.10.2021], curia.europa.eu):

1. the question is not relevant to the decision, or
2. the question has already been the subject of an interpretation by the ECJ (acte éclairé), or
3. the correct application of Union law is so obvious that there is no room for any reasonable doubt (acte clair) — and indeed so obvious also for the courts of other Member States and the Court of Justice itself.

The court of last instance must give reasons which exception applies; blanket denials do not suffice.

5. Constitutional-law consequence

If the court of last instance breaches the obligation to refer arbitrarily or unsustainably, it infringes the right to the statutory judge (Art. 101 I 2 GG). Standard: BVerfG, Honeywell (order of 06.07.2010, 2 BvR 2661/06, BVerfGE 126, 286, bverfg.de); further developed in PSPP (judgment of 05.05.2020, 2 BvR 859/15 and others, BVerfGE 154, 17, bverfg.de). Consequence: constitutional complaint against the judgment of the court of last instance.

6. Draft of the question referred

The question must (see ECJ Recommendations on references for a preliminary ruling, OJ 2019 C 380/1):

• be formulated in abstract terms, not as a request for subsumption
• precisely designate the provision to be interpreted
• set out the core of the facts in a concise paragraph
• cite the relevant national provisions
• cite previous ECJ case-law insofar as the referring chamber regards it as insufficient

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Primary and procedural law

• Art. 267 TFEU (preliminary ruling procedure)
• Art. 19 TEU (duty of the courts to provide legal protection)
• Art. 4(3) TEU (sincere cooperation)
• Art. 47 CFR (effective legal protection)
• Art. 101(1) sentence 2 GG (statutory judge)
• ECJ Statute; ECJ Rules of Procedure; Recommendations on references for a preliminary ruling, OJ 2019 C 380/1

Commentaries

• Wegener, in: Calliess/Ruffert, EUV/AEUV, 6th ed. 2022, Art. 267 TFEU para. 1 et seq.
• Karpenstein, in: Grabitz/Hilf/Nettesheim, Recht der EU, as at 2024, Art. 267 TFEU para. 1 et seq.
• Streinz, in: Streinz, EUV/AEUV, 3rd ed. 2018, Art. 267 TFEU para. 1 et seq.

Case-law

1. ECJ, judgment of 06.10.1982 – Case 283/81, CILFIT (acte clair criteria), curia.europa.eu
2. ECJ, judgment of 27.03.1963 – Joined Cases 28–30/62, Da Costa (acte éclairé), eur-lex.europa.eu
3. ECJ, judgment of 06.10.2021 – Case C-561/19, Consorzio Italian Management (clarification of CILFIT), curia.europa.eu
4. BVerfG, order of 06.07.2010 – 2 BvR 2661/06, BVerfGE 126, 286 (Honeywell), bverfg.de
5. BVerfG, judgment of 05.05.2020 – 2 BvR 859/15 and others, BVerfGE 154, 17 (PSPP), bverfg.de

Output format

GUTACHTEN — Vorlagepflicht Art. 267 AEUV
Verfahren: <Gericht, Az., Instanz>

I. Sachverhalt (knapp)
II. Frage(n) der Auslegung des Unionsrechts
III. Kurzantwort
    – Vorlagepflicht: [ja / nein / fakultativ nach Abs. 2]
    – Empfehlung: [Vorlage / kein Vorlagebedürfnis]

IV. Rechtliche Bewertung
    1. Anwendungsbereich Unionsrecht
    2. Vorlageberechtigung Art. 267 II AEUV
    3. Vorlagepflicht Art. 267 III AEUV
       a) Letztinstanzlichkeit
       b) CILFIT-Ausnahmen
          – acte éclairé?  (Belegstellen)
          – acte clair?    (Begründung der Offenkundigkeit)
    4. Verfassungsrechtliche Folgen bei Pflichtverletzung
       (Art. 101 I 2 GG, BVerfG-Beschwerde)

V. Entwurf der Vorlagefrage
    "Ist Art. X der RL/VO YYYY/JJ dahin auszulegen, dass …?"

VI. Risiken / offene Punkte
    🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 <Einstufung mit Begründung>

VII. Quellenverzeichnis

Risks / typical mistakes

• Blanket denial of the obligation to refer with "acte clair" without engaging with other language versions and the case law of the CJEU — arbitrary denial of the obligation to refer, violation of Art. 101 I 2 GG.
• Reference question as a request for subsumption ("Is the client a consumer within the meaning of …?") — the CJEU interprets, it does not subsume.
• Incomplete facts, so that the CJEU rejects the question as hypothetical (Foglia line).
• Overlooking the applicability of the CFR in the implementation of Union law (Art. 51 I CFR).
• Failing to recognize that an OLG can also be a court of last instance, if revision/non-admission complaint is inadmissible.