Towards a more protection-oriented approach of the preliminary reference procedure: case note on Consorzio italian menagement, Catania multiservizi Spa V Rete Ferroviaria Italiana Spa, C-561/19. (RI §424863)  

Hacia un enfoque más protector del procedimiento de las cuestiones prejudiciales: comentario a Consorzio italian management, Catania multiservizi Spa V. Rete Ferroviaria Italiana Spa, c-561/19 - Clelia Lacchi

La sentencia del TJUE (Gran Sala) de 6 de octubre de 2021 ofrece algunas clarificaciones interesantes relativas a las excepciones establecidas en Cilfit al deber de realizar remisiones prejudiciales por parte de las jurisdicciones nacionales cuyas decisiones no son susceptibles de ulterior recurso según el derecho nacional. Además, la sentencia constituye una importante contribución a la tutela judicial efectiva de los individuos en el contexto del procedimiento prejudicial. En efecto, al interpretar el artículo 267 TFUE a la luz del Artículo 47 de la Carta, incorpora la obligación para las jurisdiciones nacionales de última instancia de motivar su decisión de no someter una cuestión prejudicial al TJUE.

Palabras clave: Preliminary reference procedure – Effective judicial protection –– Obligation to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the EU – Cilfit - Duty to state reasons.;

The Judgment of the CJEU (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 offers some interesting clarifications concerning the exceptions, set out in Cilfit, to the duty to submit preliminary references for national courts against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law. Moreover, the judgment is an important contribution to the effective judicial protection of individuals in the context of the preliminary reference procedure. Indeed, by interpreting Article 267 TFEU in light of Article 47 of the Charter, it enshrines an obligation for national courts of last instance to state reasons for their decision not to submit a preliminary question to the CJEU.

Introduction. 1. Background of the Case. 2. The Opinion of the Advocate General. 3. The judgment. 3.1. Cilfit on the Stage. 3.2. Preliminary references, parties in the national proceedings, and national procedural rule. 4. Comment. 4.1. Revisiting Cilfit and the new face of the obligation to refer preliminary questions: the proposal of Advocate General Bobek. 4.2. Cilfit is still alive and stronger: a (re)new(ed) approach to the obligation to refer preliminary questions. 4.3. The duty to state reasons for national courts of last instance when they do not refer preliminary questions and the individualization of the preliminary reference procedure. 5. Conclusion: The preliminary reference procedure in light of Article 47 of the Charter and the enforcement of the obligation to refer preliminary questions.

Keywords: procedimiento de cuestión prejudicial – Tutela judicial efectiva – Obligación de enviar una cuestión prejudicial al Tribunal de Justicia de la UE – Cilfit – obligación de motivación;