Editing European Court of Justice (section)

===References for a preliminary ruling===
{{main|Preliminary ruling}}
References for a [[preliminary ruling]] are specific to Union law. Whilst the Court of Justice is, by its very nature, the supreme guardian of Union legality, it is not the only judicial body empowered to apply EU law.

That task also falls to national courts, in as much as they retain jurisdiction to review the administrative implementation of Union law, for which the authorities of the member states are essentially responsible; many provisions of the Treaties and of secondary legislation – regulations, directives and decisions – directly confer individual rights on nationals of member states, which national courts must uphold.

National courts are thus by their nature the first guarantors of [[Union law]]. To ensure the effective and uniform application of Union legislation and to prevent divergent interpretations, national courts may, and sometimes must, turn to the Court of Justice and ask that it clarify a point concerning the interpretation of Union law, in order, for example, to ascertain whether their national legislation complies with that law. Petitions to the Court of Justice for a [[preliminary ruling]] are described in Article 267 (ex Article 234) of the [[Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]].

A reference for a preliminary ruling may also seek review of the legality of an act of Union law. The Court of Justice's reply is not merely an opinion, but takes the form of a judgment or a reasoned order. The national court to which that is addressed is bound by the interpretation given. The Court's judgment also binds other national courts before which a problem of the same nature is raised.

Although such a reference may be made only by a national court, which alone has the power to decide that it is appropriate do so, all the parties involved – that is to say, the Member States, the parties in the proceedings before national courts and, in particular, the commission – may take part in proceedings before the Court of Justice. In this way, a number of important principles of Union law have been laid down in preliminary rulings, sometimes in answer to questions referred by national courts of first instance.

Rulings end with a dictum which summarises the decision which the Court has made and may direct how costs are to be managed.<ref>See for example [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61963CJ0090 Commission of the European Economic Community v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Kingdom of Belgium, joined cases 90/63 and 91/63], [1964] ECR 625, 10 September 2021</ref>

In the ECJ's 2009 report it was noted that Belgian, German and Italian judges made the most referrals for an interpretation of EU law to the ECJ.{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}} However, the German Constitutional Court has rarely turned to the European Court of Justice, which is why lawyers and law professors warn about a future judicial conflict between the two courts. On 7 February 2014, the German Constitutional Court referred its first case to the ECJ for a ruling on a European Central Bank program.<ref>{{cite news|title=Europe or Democracy? What German Court Ruling Means for the Euro|url=http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-court-calls-ecb-bond-buying-into-question-a-952556.html|newspaper=Spiegel Online|publisher=Spiegel Online International|date=10 February 2014}}</ref> In 2017 the German Constitutional Court referred its second case to the ECJ but contrary to the binding nature of the Court of Justice's preliminary rulings, the German Constitutional Court in 2020 refused to abide by the preliminary ruling.<ref>{{Cite web|title=EUR-Lex - 62017CJ0493 - EN - EUR-Lex|url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62017CJ0493|access-date=2021-10-03|website=eur-lex.europa.eu|language=en}}</ref> According to the German Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice's answer was unintelligble.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bundesverfassungsgericht|first=2 Senat|date=2020-05-05|title=Bundesverfassungsgericht - Decisions - ECB decisions on the Public Sector Purchase Programme exceed EU competences|url=https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2020/05/rs20200505_2bvr085915en.html|access-date=2021-10-03|website=www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de|language=en}}</ref> In June 2021, the European Commission announced it would start infringement proceedings against Germany for the German Constitutional Court's refusal to abide by the Court of Justice's preliminary ruling.<ref>{{Cite web|last=European Commission|title=June 2021 infringement package|url=https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/inf_21_2743}}</ref>

The constitutional courts of the member-states have in general been reluctant to refer a question to the European Court of Justice.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/574e0ca0a3360cc36343e9c5/1464732834397/GLJ_Vol_16_No_06_Claes_intro.pdf|title=Monica Claes, "Luxembourg, Here We Come? Constitutional Courts and the Preliminary Reference Procedure", 16 German Law Journal vol. 16, no. 6, p. 1331-1342 (2015)|access-date=24 February 2017|archive-date=20 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160720153806/http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56330ad3e4b0733dcc0c8495/t/574e0ca0a3360cc36343e9c5/1464732834397/GLJ_Vol_16_No_06_Claes_intro.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

====Dates of first references====
These are the first references by each constitutional court:
* 1997: [[Constitutional Court of Belgium]]: case C-93/97, Fédération Belge des Chambres Syndicales de Médecins ASBL 
* 1999: [[Constitutional Court of Austria]]: case C-143/99, Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH
* 2007: [[Constitutional Court of Lithuania]]: case C-239/07, Sabatauskas
* 2008: [[Constitutional Court of Italy]]: case C-169/08, ''Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v. Regione Sardegna''
* 2011: [[Constitutional Court of Spain]]: case C-399/11, Melloni
* 2013: [[Constitutional Council of France]]: case C-168/13 PPU, Jeremy
* 2014: [[Constitutional Court of Germany]]: case C-62/14, [[Peter Gauweiler|Gauweiler]]
* 2014: [[Constitutional Court of Slovenia]]: case C-526/14, Kotnik 
* 2015: Constitutional Court of Luxembourg: case C-321/15, [[ArcelorMittal]] Rodange et Schifflange SA
* 2015: [[Constitutional Court of Poland]]: case C-390/15, [[Polish Ombudsman]]
* 2016: [[Constitutional Court of Romania]]: case C-673/16, Coman
* 2017: [[Constitutional Court of Latvia]]: case C‑120/17, [[Government of Latvia|Ministru kabinets]]
* 2019: [[Constitutional Court of Slovakia]]: case C-378/19, [[President of Slovakia|Prezident Slovenskej republiky]]