意大利财团管理后提及义务的不成文例外II:“CILFIT战略”2.0及其漏洞

L. Cecchetti, Daniel Gallo
{"title":"意大利财团管理后提及义务的不成文例外II:“CILFIT战略”2.0及其漏洞","authors":"L. Cecchetti, Daniel Gallo","doi":"10.7590/187479822x16669633687993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The unwritten exceptions to the duty to refer upon last instance national courts, most notably the so-called 'acte clair doctrine' forged in the wellknown CILFIT ruling, lie at the core of the multilevel composite judicial architecture of the EU. Taking in due consideration the copious\n literature in this regard, our article examines the current state of EU law in relation to the unwritten exceptions to the duty to refer enshrined in Article 267(3) TFEU and its major issues. The relevance and topicality of the analysis result from developments brought about by the Grand Chamber\n in Consorzio Italian Management II, which will be the point of reference for the future doctrinal reflection on the dialogue between last instance national courts and the ECJ. We contend that, by updating and partially reshaping the CILFIT conditions, the ECJ has to some extent updated the\n judicial rationale underlying that judgment: strengthening the ECJ's judicial control over last instance national courts' practice while – at the very same time – loosening its reins on these courts in some respects. Indeed, in today's Union, the Court seems to have accepted the\n idea that, in the context of Article 267 TFEU, its authority can only be successfully performed if to some extent shared with last instance national judges, whose role as enforcer of EU law has been enhanced along with the responsibilities attached to it. One might thus wonder whether this\n strategy will be as successful as its 'predecessor' (i. e., CILFIT).","PeriodicalId":294114,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Administrative Law","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Unwritten Exceptions to the Duty to Refer After Consorzio Italian Management II: 'CILFIT Strategy' 2.0 and its Loopholes\",\"authors\":\"L. Cecchetti, Daniel Gallo\",\"doi\":\"10.7590/187479822x16669633687993\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The unwritten exceptions to the duty to refer upon last instance national courts, most notably the so-called 'acte clair doctrine' forged in the wellknown CILFIT ruling, lie at the core of the multilevel composite judicial architecture of the EU. Taking in due consideration the copious\\n literature in this regard, our article examines the current state of EU law in relation to the unwritten exceptions to the duty to refer enshrined in Article 267(3) TFEU and its major issues. The relevance and topicality of the analysis result from developments brought about by the Grand Chamber\\n in Consorzio Italian Management II, which will be the point of reference for the future doctrinal reflection on the dialogue between last instance national courts and the ECJ. We contend that, by updating and partially reshaping the CILFIT conditions, the ECJ has to some extent updated the\\n judicial rationale underlying that judgment: strengthening the ECJ's judicial control over last instance national courts' practice while – at the very same time – loosening its reins on these courts in some respects. Indeed, in today's Union, the Court seems to have accepted the\\n idea that, in the context of Article 267 TFEU, its authority can only be successfully performed if to some extent shared with last instance national judges, whose role as enforcer of EU law has been enhanced along with the responsibilities attached to it. One might thus wonder whether this\\n strategy will be as successful as its 'predecessor' (i. e., CILFIT).\",\"PeriodicalId\":294114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of European Administrative Law\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of European Administrative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479822x16669633687993\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of European Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479822x16669633687993","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在终审时提交国家法院的义务的不成文例外,最明显的是在著名的CILFIT裁决中形成的所谓的“行为原则”,是欧盟多层次综合司法架构的核心。考虑到这方面的大量文献,我们的文章研究了欧盟法律的现状,涉及第267(3)条TFEU规定的参考义务的不成文例外及其主要问题。这一分析的相关性和时事性源于意大利第二管理联盟大分庭所带来的事态发展,它将成为今后对国家法院与欧洲法院之间的最后一审对话进行理论反思的参考点。我们认为,通过更新和部分重塑CILFIT条件,欧洲法院在一定程度上更新了该判决的司法依据:加强了欧洲法院对终审国家法院实践的司法控制,同时在某些方面放松了对这些法院的控制。事实上,在今天的欧盟,法院似乎已经接受了这样一种观点,即在第267条TFEU的背景下,法院的权力只有在某种程度上与终审国家法官共同行使,后者作为欧盟法律执行者的作用随着所附加的责任而得到加强。因此,人们可能会怀疑这种策略是否会像它的“前身”(即CILFIT)一样成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Unwritten Exceptions to the Duty to Refer After Consorzio Italian Management II: 'CILFIT Strategy' 2.0 and its Loopholes
The unwritten exceptions to the duty to refer upon last instance national courts, most notably the so-called 'acte clair doctrine' forged in the wellknown CILFIT ruling, lie at the core of the multilevel composite judicial architecture of the EU. Taking in due consideration the copious literature in this regard, our article examines the current state of EU law in relation to the unwritten exceptions to the duty to refer enshrined in Article 267(3) TFEU and its major issues. The relevance and topicality of the analysis result from developments brought about by the Grand Chamber in Consorzio Italian Management II, which will be the point of reference for the future doctrinal reflection on the dialogue between last instance national courts and the ECJ. We contend that, by updating and partially reshaping the CILFIT conditions, the ECJ has to some extent updated the judicial rationale underlying that judgment: strengthening the ECJ's judicial control over last instance national courts' practice while – at the very same time – loosening its reins on these courts in some respects. Indeed, in today's Union, the Court seems to have accepted the idea that, in the context of Article 267 TFEU, its authority can only be successfully performed if to some extent shared with last instance national judges, whose role as enforcer of EU law has been enhanced along with the responsibilities attached to it. One might thus wonder whether this strategy will be as successful as its 'predecessor' (i. e., CILFIT).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信