The role of the National Judge in the European Judicial System and the Procedures of the CJEU

SCHMUCKBILD + LOGO

INHALT

BREADCRUMB

Introduction

 

The effective application of EU law cannot be ensured by the EU and its courts alone. It depends strongly on domestic courts and individuals that initiate proceedings before these courts to enforce their rights under EU law (Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos). Therefore, the judges of domestic courts are at the same time European judges. They not only apply domestic law but also EU law. The CJEU cooperates with domestic courts in the framework of the preliminary ruling procedure. An additional source for the interpretation of EU law can be found in judgments delivered as a result of infringement procedures, in particular in the field of the environment. In air quality legislation, see Cases C-365/10 Commission v Slovenia, C-479/10 Commission v Sweden, C-34/11 Commission v Portugal, C-638/18 Commission v Romania (exceeding the limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air) and other case-law referred below.

Example: In Case C-636/18 Commission v France concerning systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for NO2 in certain French zones and agglomerations, the CJEU held that the wording of Articles 13 and 23 of the AQD refers without distinction to all ambient air pollutants to which that directive applies.

The national judges should not put the EU requirements aside because of the difficulties related to the transposition and effective application for the Member States (such as socio-economic situation, large-scale investments and structural changes or technical difficulties). According to the CJEU, it is irrelevant whether the failure to fulfil obligations is the result of intention or negligence on the part of the Member State responsible, or of technical difficulties encountered by it. A Member State which encounters temporarily insuperable difficulties preventing it from complying with its obligations under European Union law may plead force majeure only for the period necessary in order to resolve those difficulties (Case C-68/11 Commission v Italy, Case C-488/15 Commission v Bulgaria, Case C-336/16 Commission v Poland concerning limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air).

Example: Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-488/15 Commission v Bulgaria: “96. The air quality plans under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50 can also be adopted only on the basis of such a balance of interests. The high importance of ambient air quality for the protection of life and health leaves only very little room for consideration of other interests. It therefore also requires a strict review of the assessment made. However, there are undeniably overriding interests which may preclude certain appropriate measures.”