We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
The CJEU has no jurisdiction to rule in purely internal situations, save for three exceptions. As easy as this may sound, the CJEU's case law is not entirely consistent and created uncertainty for national courts. This article critically examines how the CJEU has dealt with purely internal situations. It shows that the CJEU should be stricter in defending its gates. Instead of turning the three exceptions into the rule, the CJEU should treat the three exceptions as they were originally envisaged: Exceptions. The recent Grand Chamber in Ullens de Schooten is a step in the right direction. A stricter approach makes it necessary that the CJEU looks a bit more over the national judge's shoulder, which changes the cooperative dynamic by putting the CJEU into a more vertical position vis-à-vis national courts. National courts can, however, escape this more conflictual setup by providing more detailed information as to the fulfillment of one of the three exceptions.
1 See Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art. 28, 30, 34, 35, 49, 56 and 63, Oct. 26, 2012, 2012 O.J. (C 326/47) 1; Pedro Caro de Soussa, Catch Me if you Can? The Market Freedoms' Ever-Expanding Outer Limits, 4 Eur. J. Legal Stud. 169 (2011).Google Scholar
2 See Case 98/86, Ministère Public v. Mathot, 1987 E.C.R. 00809; Case 20/87, Ministère Public v. André Gauchard, 1987 E.C.R. 04879; Case C-134/95, USSL nº 47 di Biella v INAIL, 1997 E.C.R. I-195; Case C-108/98, RI.SAN., 1999 E.C.R. I-5219, paras. 18–23; Case 180/83, Hans Moser v. Land Baden-Württemburg 1984 E.C.R. 02539, para. 18; Case C-299/95, Friedrich Kremzow v. Republik Österreich, 1997 E.C.R. I-02629, para. 16; Case C-97/98, Jägerskiöld, 1999 ECR I-7319, para. 42.Google Scholar
3 Note that the CJEU seems to suggest that there is a fourth category when national law applies to and has effects on nationals of other Member States. See Joined Cases ECJ, C-197/11 and C-203/11, Libert, ECLI:EU:C:2013:288, Judgment of 8 May 2013. See also ECJ, Case C-268/15, Ullens de Schooten, ECLI:EU:C:2016:874, para. 51, Judgment of 15 November 2016; Case 286/81, Oosthoek, 1982 E.C.R. 4575; and Joined Cases 297/88 and C-197/89, Dzodzi, 1990 E.C.R. I-3763; Case C-448/98, Guimont, 2000 E.C.R. I-10663.Google Scholar
4 See Langer, Jurian, The Preliminary Ruling Procedure: Old Problems or New Challenges? (Dec. 29, 2016), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2885256; Maria Dicosola, Christina Fasone, and Irene Spigno, Foreword: Constitutional Courts in the European Legal System After the Treaty of Lisbon and the Euro-Crisis, 16 German L. J. 1326 (2015).Google Scholar
5 See Opinion of Advocate General Wahl at para. 3, Case C-497/12, Gullotta and Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. (July 2, 2015), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
6 See Supremo, Tribuno, Case C-168/14, Grupo Itevelesa and others, ECLI:EU:C:2015:685, para. 36, Judgment of 3 June 2015; ECJ, Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14, Trijber and Harmsen, ECLI:EU:C:2015:641, para. 41, Judgment of 1 October 2015; Klaas Sevinga, Bevoegdheid van het Hof van Justitie: de ene interne situatie is de andere niet, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees Recht (2014).Google Scholar
7 See Case C-203/09, Volvo Car Germany, 2010 E.C.R. I-10721, paras. 23–31.Google Scholar
8 See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, Case C-28/95 and Case C-130/95, Leur Bloem/Giloy (Sept. 17, 1996), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
9 See ECJ, Case C-345/14, Maxima Latvija, ECLI:EU:C:2015:784, Judgment of 26 November 2015.Google Scholar
10 See ECJ, Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12, Airport Shuttle Express, ECLI:EU:C:2014:74, para. 48, Judgment of 13 Feb. 2014; ECJ, Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12, Venturini, ECLI:EU:C:2013:791, paras. 25–26, Judgment of 5 December 2013; Opinion of Advocate General Wahl, supra note 5, at para. 37.Google Scholar
11 See infra notes 110–114.Google Scholar
12 But see Sevinga, supra note 6; Sacha Prechal, Interne situatie en prejudiciële vragen, SEW (2015) https://www.ris.uu.nl/ws/files/17853881/19.pdf.Google Scholar
13 See ECJ, Opinion 2/13, EU:C:2014:2454, para. 176, Judgment of 18 December 2014; Case C-300/99 P, Area Cova and others v. Council, 2001 E.C.R. I-983, para. 54.Google Scholar
14 See Craig, Paul, The Jurisdiction of the Community Courts Reconsidered, 36 Tex. Int'l L. J. 556, 559 (2001); J.H.H. Weiler, The European Court, National Courts and References for Preliminary Rulings—The Paradox of Success: A Revisionist View of Article 177 EEC, Article 177 EEC: Experiences and Problems (Schermers, Henry G., C.W.A. Timmermans & A.E. Kellerman, eds. 1987).Google Scholar
15 See generally Joseph H.H. Weiler, A Quiet Revolution: The European Court of Justice and its Interlocutors, 26 Comp. Pol. Stud. (1994).Google Scholar
16 See ECJ, Case C-62/14, Gauweiler, ECLI:EU:C:2015:400, para. 15, Judgment of 16 June 2015.Google Scholar
17 See id. Google Scholar
18 See id.; Case 6/64, Costa v. ENEL, 1964 E.C.R. 1195.Google Scholar
19 Case 146/73, Rheinmühlen Düsseldorf v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, 1974 E.C.R. 139.Google Scholar
20 See Joined Cases C-570/07 and C-571/07, Blanco Pérez, 2010 E.C.R. I-4629, paras. 35–36; C-280/06, ETI, 2007 E.C.R. I-10893, para. 20; Case C-300/01, Salzmann, 2003 E.C.R. I-4899, para. 31.Google Scholar
21 See Sarmiento, Daniel, The Silent Lamb and the Deaf Wolves. Constitutional Pluralism, Preliminary References and the Role of Silent Judgments in EU Law, in Constitutional Pluralism in the EU and Beyond 309 (M. Avbelj & J. Komárek eds., 2012).Google Scholar
22 See ECJ, Case C-614/14, Ognyanov, ECLI:EU:C:2016:514, Judgment of 5 July 2016; Case C-137/09, Josemans, 2010 E.C.R. I-13019.Google Scholar
23 See ECJ, Case C-182/15, Petruhhin, ECLI:EU:C:2016:630, para. 18, Judgment of 6 September 2016.Google Scholar
24 See Cartabia, Marta, Europe as a Space of Constitutional Interdependence: New Questions about the Preliminary Ruling, 16 German L.J. 1795 (2015).Google Scholar
25 See Sarmiento, supra note 21, at 291.Google Scholar
26 See Tridimas, Takis, The ECJ and the National Courts. Dialogue, Cooperation, and Instability, in The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law 407 (Anthony Arnull & Damian Chalmers eds. 2015).Google Scholar
27 Giuseppe Martinico, Judging in the Multilevel Legal Order: Exploring the Techniques of “Hidden Dialogue,” 21 King's L.J. 257 (2010); Monica Claes, Luxembourg, Here We Come? Constitutional Courts and the Preliminary Reference Procedure, 16 German L.J. 1331 (2015).Google Scholar
28 See Sarmiento, supra note 21, at 313.Google Scholar
29 See Davies, Gareth, Activism Relocated. The Self-Restraint of the European Court of Justice in its National Context, 19 J. Eur. Pub. Pol'y 76 (2012).Google Scholar
30 See Sarmiento, supra note 21, at 309.Google Scholar
31 See generally Christiaan Timmermans, The Magic World of Constitutional Pluralism, 10 Eur. Const. L. Rev. (2014).Google Scholar
32 For a clear statement of the ECJ in this direction, see ECJ, Case C-62/14 Gauweiler v. Deutscher Bundestag, ECLI:EU:C:2015:400, at para. 16.Google Scholar
33 See Case C-224/01, Köbler v. Republik Österreich, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239. This judgment was later confirmed in Case C-173/03, Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA v. Repubblica italiana, 2006 E.C.R. I-5177. The CJEU also determined that Italian legislation limiting state liability for damage caused by courts of last instance breached EU law. See Case C-379/10, Commission v. Italy 2011 E.C.R. I-180.Google Scholar
34 See Köbler, Case C-224/01 at paras. 117–18.Google Scholar
35 See id. at para. 56; Thomas de la Mare & Catherine Donnelly, Preliminary Rulings and EU Legal Integration: Evolution and Stasis, The Evolution of EU Law 377 (Paul Craig & Grainne De Búrca eds. 2015).Google Scholar
36 The CJEU held that “in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings,” the Portuguese court was obligated to refer. The Portuguese court was wrong to consider the answer to be clair because of the conflicting decisions of lower courts regarding the interpretation of the concept of a “transfer of a business” and the fact that that concept frequently gives rise to difficulties of interpretation in various Member States. See ECJ, Case C-160/14, Ferreira da Silva v. Estados portugu ês, ECLI:EU:C:2015:565, paras. 44–45, Judgment of 9 September 2015.Google Scholar
37 See Tridimas, supra note 26, at 407.Google Scholar
38 See de la Mare and Donnelly, supra note 35, at 377.Google Scholar
39 Catherine Barnard & Eleanor Sharpston, The Changing Face of Article 177 References, 34 Common Mkt. L. Rev. (1997). The tendency in the CJEU case law after Foglia to decline jurisdiction was also heavily criticized as being “disturbing and perplexing.” Salius LukasKaleda, Extension of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure Outside the Scope of Community Law: “The Dzodzi Line of Cases,” 4 Eur. Integration Online Papers 6 (2000); Giuseppe Tesauro, The European Court and National Courts, 13 Y.B. Eur. L. 12 (1993); Anthony Arnull, The Evolution of the Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 177 EEC, 18 Eur. L. Rev. (1993); David O'Keeffe, Is the Spirit of Article 177 Under Attack? Preliminary References and Admissibility, 23 Eur. L. Rev. 509 (1998).Google Scholar
40 See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs at para. 57, Case C-306/99, BIAO, 2003 E.C.R. I-1, (Jan. 7, 2003), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
41 See Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen at para. 35, Case C-393/08, Sbarigia v. Azienda USL RM/A, 2010 E.C.R. I-6337 (July 1, 2010), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
42 See Barnard & Sharpston, supra note 39, at 1168.Google Scholar
43 See de la Mare and Donelly, supra note 35; Diana-Urania Galetta, European Court of Justice and Preliminary Reference Procedure Today: National Judges, Please Behave!, Verfassung und Verwaltung in Europa. Festschrift für Jürgen Schwarze zum 70. Geburtstag 674–91 (U. Becker et al. eds., 2014).Google Scholar
44 See Sharpston, Eleanor, Making the Court of Justice of the European Union More Productive, Maastricht J. of Eur. and Comp. L. (2014); Jan Komarek, In the Court(s) We Trust? On the Need for Hierarchy and Differentiation in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure, 32 Eur. L. Rev. 482–83 (2007).Google Scholar
45 See Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Case 14/01680, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3608, Judgment of 22 December 2015.Google Scholar
46 Prechal, supra note 12, at 494.Google Scholar
47 ECJ, Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12, Airport Shuttle Express, ECLI:EU:C:2014:74, para. 49–50, Judgment of 13 Feb. 2014.Google Scholar
48 See id. at paras. 39–40.Google Scholar
49 See Prechal, supra note 12, at 494.Google Scholar
50 Ramona Grimbergen, How Boundaries Have Shifted. On Jurisdiction and Admissibility in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure, 8 Rev. Eur. Admin. L. 40 (2015); Case C-245/09, Omalet, 2010 E.C.R. I-13771, paras. 18–19; Opinion of Advocate General Wahl, at para. 44, Case C-207/13, Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, (May 13, 2014), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/; Opinion of Advocate General Wahl, supra note 5, at para. 15; Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen at paras. 29–38, Case C-393/08, Sbarigia v. Azienda USL RM/A, 2010 E.C.R. I-6337 (July 1, 2010).Google Scholar
51 Opinion of Advocate General Wahl, supra note 5, at paras. 16, 21; ECJ, Case C-268/15, Ullens de Schooten, ECLI:EU:C:2016:874, para. 40, Judgment of 15 November 2016.Google Scholar
52 See id. at para. 21; ECJ, C-281/15, Sahyouni, ECLI:EU:C:2016:343, para. 32, Judgment of 12 May 2016.Google Scholar
53 Grimbergen, supra note 50, at 41.Google Scholar
54 Prechal, supra note 12, at 495.Google Scholar
55 This also seems to be the approach of the CJEU in Ullens de Schooten, even though the CJEU places more emphasis on the fact that it has jurisdiction in relation to the principle of non-contractual liability. ECJ, Case C-268/15, Ullens de Schooten, ECLI:EU:C:2016:874, para. 41–44, Judgment of 15 November 2016; See also ECJ, Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12, Airport Shuttle Express, ECLI:EU:C:2014:74, para. 49–50, Judgment of 13 Feb. 2014.Google Scholar
56 See ECJ, Case C-98/14, Berlington, ECLI:EU:C:2015:386, para. 23–28, Judgment of 11 June 2015; see also Supremo, Tribuno, Case C-168/14, Grupo Itevelesa and others, ECLI:EU:C:2015:685, para. 36, Judgment of 3 June 2015; Case C-384/08, Attanasio Group Srl v Comune di Carbognano, 2010 E.C.R. I-2055, para. 24.Google Scholar
57 See ECJ, Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14, Trijber and Harmsen, ECLI:EU:C:2015:641, para. 41, Judgment of 1 October 2015. See also ECJ, C-292/12, Ragn-Sells AS v. Sillamäe Linnavalitsus, ECLI:EU:C:2013:820, paras. 69–74, Judgment of 12 December 2013.Google Scholar
58 In Oosthoek, the CJEU applied Article 34 TFEU in relation to both domestic and imported products. See Case 286/81, Oosthoek, 1982 E.C.R. 4575Google Scholar
59 See Case 298/87, Smanor, 1988 E.C.R. 4489, paras. 8–10 (referring to what the court did following the CJEU judgment in Smanor and the “curious situation” to which AG Jacobs referred). See also Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 8, at para. 63; Cyril Ritter, Purely Internal Situations, Reverse Discrimination, Guimont, Dzodzi and Article 234, 12, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=95424; Niamh Nic Shuibhne, Free Movement of Persons and the Wholly Internal Rule: Time to Move On ?, 39 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 731 (2002).Google Scholar
60 See also Joined Cases C-363/93, C-407/93, C-408/93, C-409/93, C-410/93 and C-411/93, Lancry v. Direction Générale des Souanes et. al., 1994 E.C.R. I-3957; Case C-293/02, Jersey Produce Marketing Organization v. Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board, 2005 E.C.R. I-9543; Case C-72/03, Carbonati Apuani v. Comune di Carrara, 2004 E.C.R. I-8027.Google Scholar
61 See Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to C-540/99, Reisch v. Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, et. al., 2002, E.C.R. I-2157.Google Scholar
62 See Case C-6/01, Anomar v. Estado português, 2003 E.C.R. I-8621.Google Scholar
63 See Case C-250/03, Mauri v. Ministero della Giustizia and Commissione per gli esami di avvocato presso la Corte d'appello di Milano, 2005 E.C.R. I-1267.Google Scholar
64 One could especially point to the case law of the CJEU on EU citizenship in this context, Zambrano in particular. See Case C-34/09, Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l'emploi, 2011 E.C.R. I-1177. See ECJ, Case C-304/14, Secretary of State for the Home Division v. CS, ECLI:EU:C:2016:674, Judgment of 13 September 2016; ECJ, Case C-165/14, Rendón Marín v. Administración del Estado, ECLI:EU:C:2016:675, Judgment of 13 September 2016. See also Kochenov, Dimitry, The Right to Have What Rights? EU Citizenship in Need of Clarification, 19 Eur. L. J. (2013); Nic Shuibhne, supra note 59, at 740.Google Scholar
65 Articles 101 and 102 TFEU prohibit anti-competitive practices “which may affect trade between Member States.” The CJEU adopted a broad definition by determining “it must be possible to foresee with a sufficient degree of probability on the basis of a set of objective factors of law or of fact that the agreement in question may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the pattern of trade between Member States.” An actual impact on trade is not required, but the disputed practice must only be capable of having such an effect. Nor does it matter that all facts are confined to one Member State only. See Case 56/65, Société Technique Minière v. Maschinenbau Ulm GmbH, 1966 E.C.R. 235; Paul Craig and Grainne de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials 1025 (2015); Kamiel Mortelmans, Towards Convergence in the Application of the Rules on Free Movement and on Competition, 38 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 613 (2001).Google Scholar
66 Note that in Centro Europa 7 the CJEU also answered the questions on whether it is possible that operators in other Member States would be interested. See Case C-380/05, Centro Europa 7 v. Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità, 2008 E.C.R. I-349, para. 66.Google Scholar
67 The CJEU seems to have taken this “far from inconceivable” logic from procurement cases where this has been used by the CJEU in relation to the tendering of public service concessions. Centro Europa 7, for example, referred to two judgments in the field of public procurement for support. See id. at para. 66; Case C-87/94, Commission v. Belgium, 1996 E.C.R. I-2043, para. 33; Case C-458/03, Parking Brixen v. Gemeinde Brixen, 2005 E.C.R. I-8585, para. 55. See also Case C-231/03, Coname v. Comune di Cingia de' Botti, 2005 E.C.R. I-7287, paras. 17–18.Google Scholar
68 The CJEU eventually held that the rules are more advantageous to operators already established in Italy and, hence, discourage or even preclude access to operators from other Member States. See Attanasio Group Srl v Comune di Carbognano, Case C-384/08 at para. 24.Google Scholar
69 Blanco Pérez, Joined Cases C-570/07 and C-571/07 at para. 40.Google Scholar
70 See id. at paras. 117–22. According to AG Wahl, the potential restrictive effects were evident in Venturini. See Opinion of Advocate General Wahl at para. 67, Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12, Venturini v. ASL Varese et. al., (Sept. 5, 2013), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
71 Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed at para. 88, Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to C-540/99, Reisch v. Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg, 2002, E.C.R. I-2157 (Nov. 20, 2001), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/; Caro de Soussa, supra note 1, at 169–73.Google Scholar
72 See Opinion of Advocate General Wahl, supra note 5, at para. 34.Google Scholar
73 See Ritter, supra note 59, at 12.Google Scholar
74 See Joined Cases ECJ, C-197/11 and C-203/11, Libert, ECLI:EU:C:2013:288, para. 34, Judgment of 8 May 2013.Google Scholar
75 ECJ, Case C-265/12, Citroën Belux, ECLI:EU:C:2013:498, para. 33, Judgment of 18 July 2013, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
76 See Joined Cases ECJ, C-197/11 and C-203/11, Libert, ECLI:EU:C:2013:288, para. 34, Judgment of 8 May 2013.Google Scholar
77 See ECJ, Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12, Venturini, ECLI:EU:C:2013:791, paras. 25–26, Judgment of 5 December 2013. In a subsequent and rather similar case about para-pharmacies, Gullotta, the CJEU declared the questions inadmissible because the national court failed to explain why the national legislation does not comply with the EU Treaties, and consequently the CJEU could not give a useful answer. See ECJ, Case C-497/12, Gullotta and Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. v. Ministero della Salute, ECLI:EU:C:2015:436, Judgment of 2 July 2015.Google Scholar
78 See ECJ, Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14, Trijber and Harmsen, ECLI:EU:C:2015:641, para. 41, Judgment of 1 October 2015.Google Scholar
79 The CJEU thus avoided, contrary to the opinion of AG Szpunar, ruling on the much-debated question as to whether the Directive 2006/123 applies to such purely internal situations. See Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar at paras. 48–49, Joined Cases C-340/14 and C-341/14, Trijber and Harmsen (July 16, 2015), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/. See also Barnard, Catherine, Unravelling the Services Directive, 45 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 323, 351–52 (2008); Gareth Davies, The Services Directive: Extending the Country of Origin Principle, and Reforming Public Administration, 32 Eur. L. Rev. 232, 241–43 (2007). The Dutch Council of State was seemingly dissatisfied with the CJEU dodging of its question and referred the same question in Case C-31/16, Visser Vastgoed.Google Scholar
80 See ECJ, Case C-282/15, Queisser Pharma, ECLI:EU:C:2017:26, paras. 38–43, Judgment of 19 January 2017.Google Scholar
81 AG Kokott noted in relation to Duomo Gpa that the CJEU did not accept the “general, unsupported and not further substantiated statement” that nationals of other MS might potentially have an interest. See Opinion of Advocate General Kokott at para. 32, Joined cases C-162/12 and C-163/12, Airport Shuttle Express, (Feb. 13, 2014), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/. In Duomo Gpa, the CJEU based itself on the written submissions of the Commission to conclude that it is “far from inconceivable” that there is such an interest. See ECJ, Joined Cases C-357/10 to C-359/10, Duomo Gpa v. Comune di Baranzate, ECLI:EU:C:2012:283, para. 28, Judgment of 10 May 2012; see also ECJ, Joined Cases C-692/15 to C-694/15, Security Service v. Ministero dell'Interno, ECLI:EU:C:2016:344, paras. 23–25, Judgment of 12 May 2016.Google Scholar
82 See ECJ, Case C-292/12, Ragn-Sells AS v. Sillamäe Linnavalitsus, ECLI:EU:C:2013:820, para. 72, Judgment of 12 December 2013.Google Scholar
83 The Dutch referring court in Trijber also pointed to the seemingly stricter approach of the CJEU in Ragn-Sells. See ECJ, Dutch Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2014:2488, para. 4.10, Judgment of 9 July 2014.Google Scholar
84 See Case C-393/08, Sbarigia, 2010 E.C.R. I-6337.Google Scholar
85 The CJEU mentioned this in a subsequent case, Venturini, when it compared both cases. See ECJ, Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12, Venturini, ECLI:EU:C:2013:791, paras. 27, Judgment of 5 December 2013.Google Scholar
86 See Case C-393/08, Sbarigia, 2010 E.C.R. I-6337, para. 24.Google Scholar
87 See ECJ, Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12, Airport Shuttle Express, ECLI:EU:C:2014:74, para. 48, Judgment of 13 Feb. 2014.Google Scholar
88 See ECJ, Joined Cases C-419/12 and C-420/12, Crono Service v. Roma Capitale, ECLI:EU:C:2014:81, para. 37, Judgment of 13 February 2014.Google Scholar
89 This was not only based on the limited information in the order for reference, but also because the question concerned Article 49 TFEU, whereas the applicants sought market access to particular Italian regions not so much to establish themselves, but to provide services in the transport sector on an ad hoc basis. The latter is not governed by Article 56 TFEU, but rather by Title VI in Part Three TFEU, which concerns the common transport policy. See id. at paras. 40–44.Google Scholar
90 The CJEU held that the applicants were already authorized to operate a car and driver hire service, but their authorizations were temporarily suspended because they did not meet several conditions. They merely aimed to strike out some conditions and were thus not challenging the general system of rules governing car and driver hire or the way in which authorizations are granted. See ECJ, Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12, Airport Shuttle Express, ECLI:EU:C:2014:74, para. 39, Judgment of 13 Feb. 2014.Google Scholar
91 Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, supra note 81, at paras. 40–41.Google Scholar
92 See ECJ, Case C-593/13, Rina v. Rina Services SpA, ECLI:EU:C:2015:399, para. 14, Judgment of 16 June 2015. Likewise, in Femarbel, the CJEU did not pay attention either to the applicability of the Services Directive and answered the preliminary references even though the dispute was a purely internal situation. See ECJ, Case C-57/12, Femarbel, ECLI:EU:C:2013:517, Judgment of 11 July 2013Google Scholar
93 See id. at para. 15.Google Scholar
94 See ECJ, Case C-539/11, Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo, ECLI:EU:C:2013:591, Judgment of 26 September 2013; ECJ, Case C 539/11, Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo, ECLI:EU:C:2013:41, para. 13, Opinion of 30 January 2013.Google Scholar
95 See Ritter, supra note 59, at 5; Grimbergen, supra note 50, at 58.Google Scholar
96 See Caro de Soussa, supra note 1, at 177; Ritter, supra note 59, at 4.Google Scholar
97 See Grimbergen, supra note 50, at 58.Google Scholar
98 See also Case C-98/14, Berlington, ECLI:EU:C:2015:386, para. 23–28, Judgment of 11 June 2015.Google Scholar
99 See Ritter, supra note 59, at 3, 12; Opinion of Advocate General Darmon at paras. 10–11, Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89, Dzodzi v. Belgian (July 3, 1990), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
100 See Enchelmaier, Stefan, Always at your Service (Within Limits): The CJEU's Case Law on Article 56 TFEU (2006–11), 36 Eur. L. Rev. 615, 618 (2011).Google Scholar
101 See Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl at para. 17, Case C-60/00, Carpenter v. State (Sept. 13, 2001), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
102 Maduro aptly observed that “EC law obliges States to treat nationals of other Member States in a way which—by reasons of their own policies and aims—they did not originally intend to treat their own nationals”. Miguel Poiares Maduro, The Scope of European Remedies: The Case of Purely Internal Situations and Reverse Discrimination, The Future of Remedies in Europe 127 (Claire Kilpatrick, Tonia Novitz and and Paul Skidmore eds., 2000).Google Scholar
103 See Caro de Soussa, supra note 1, at 174, 177.Google Scholar
104 See id. at 175; ECJ, Case C-268/15, Ullens de Schooten, ECLI:EU:C:2016:874, para. 49, Judgment of 15 November 2016.Google Scholar
105 Prechal therefore proposed that the CJEU uses a “Schutznorm,” a relativity requirement, which means that the CJEU examines whether the EU law provision relied on also seeks to protect the interests of the plaintiff(s). Prechal at the same time noted that the case law of the CJEU does not wholeheartedly support this (yet). See Prechal, supra note 12, at 495–96.Google Scholar
106 See Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano at para. 63, Case C-442/02, Caixabank France v. Ministère de l'Économie (Mar. 25, 2004), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/; Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro at paras. 1, 28, Case C-292/92, Hünermund v. Landesapothekerkammer Baden-Württemberg (Oct. 27, 1993), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/; Ritter, supra note 59, at 12–13; Caro de Soussa, supra note 1, at 176, 178.Google Scholar
107 See Prechal, supra note 12, at 495.Google Scholar
108 See Opinion of Advocate General Wahl, supra note 70, at para. 36.Google Scholar
109 See Caro de Sousa, The European Fundamental Freedoms: A Contextual Approach 181, 186 (2015).Google Scholar
110 Several Dutch courts, for example, determined that the operation of ferries between the Dutch mainland and islands in the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea amounts to a purely internal situation, while the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal did not even address this matter, seemingly assuming that EU law applied, because it referred a question for a preliminary ruling. See Dutch Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2011:BU5444, para. 2.5.3, Judgment of 23 November 2011; District Court Leeuwarden, ECLI:NL:RBLEE:2012:BY5837, para. 9.6.2, Judgment of 12 December 2012; Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal, ECLI:NL:CBB:2013:BZ6922, Judgment of 15 April 2013. The case was settled and struck out. Case ECJ, C-207/13, Wagenborg Passagiersdiensten BV, Judgment of 13 May 2014. By contrast, another Dutch court determined that a ferry service, which is primarily used by students and day-trippers from the region, could affect the trade between Member States. District Court Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:BZ5824, para. 10.1, Judgment of 28 March 2013.Google Scholar
111 See Dutch Council of State, ECLI:NL:RVS:2014:2488, para. 4.10, Judgment of 9 July 2014.Google Scholar
112 See id.; Enchelmaier, supra note 100, at 618.Google Scholar
113 See Prechal, supra note 12, at 495.Google Scholar
114 See Shuibhne, Nic, supra note 59, at 741; Caro de Soussa, supra note 1, at 178. AG Kokott also held that the criterion is in need of clarification. See Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, supra note 81, at para. 32.Google Scholar
115 One fruitful starting point for the CJEU might be Belgacom, a public procurement case, where the CJEU offered more yardsticks in determining whether there is a certain cross-border interest even though there were no economic operators who had actually manifested their interest. The CJEU held that such an interest might be derived from the financial value of the planned agreement, from the location where it is to be performed or its technical characteristics. See ECJ, Case C-221/12, Belgacom NV, ECLI:EU:C:2013:736, paras. 28 and 31, Judgment of 14 November 2013. These yardsticks were subsequently applied in other (procurement) cases as well. See Joined Cases C-25/14 and C-26/14, UNIS, ECLI:EU:C:2015:821, para. 28, Judgment of 17 December 2015; Joined Cases C-458/14 and C-67/15, Promoimpresa, ECLI:EU:C:2016:558, para. 66, Judgment of 14 July 2016. See also Case C-380/05, Centro Europa 7 v. Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità, 2008 E.C.R. I-349, para. 67 (referring to the earlier referenced “market in question”).Google Scholar
116 This responsibility of national courts also avoids the misuse of the preliminary ruling procedure. This responsibility also stems from the duty of loyal cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU. See Prechal, supra note 12; Galetta, supra note 43.Google Scholar
117 See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 57, at para. 43; Kaleda, supra note 59, at 2.Google Scholar
118 See Case C-73/89, Fournier v Van Werven, 1992 E.C.R. I-5621; Case C-88/91, Federconsorzi v AIMA, 1992 E.C.R. I-4035.Google Scholar
119 In Thomasdünger, the German court asked for an interpretation of the Common Customs Tariff in a situation outside the scope of the Tariff but where the Tariff was made applicable by German rules. Without paying much attention to this scope question, the CJEU merely held that “except in exceptional cases in which it is clear that the provision of Community law … does not apply to the facts of the dispute … the Court leaves it to the national court to determine … whether a preliminary ruling is necessary.” See Case C-166/84, Thomasdünger v. Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main, 1985 E.C.R. 3001, para. 11.Google Scholar
120 See Opinion of Advocate General Darmon, supra note 99.Google Scholar
121 See Joined Cases 297/88 and C-197/89, Dzodzi, 1990 E.C.R. I-3763, para. 37.Google Scholar
122 See Case C-130/95, Giloy v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost, 1997 E.C.R. I-4291, para. 23; Case C-28/95, Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen, 1997 E.C.R. I-4161, para. 27.Google Scholar
123 See also Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro at para. 10, Case C-346/93, Kleinwort Benson v. City of Glasgow (Jan. 31, 1995), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
124 See Ritter, supra note 59, at 8; Takis Tridimas, Knocking on Heaven's Door: Fragmentation, Efficiency and Defiance in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure, 40 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 34 (2003).Google Scholar
125 See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 8, at para. 13, 43.Google Scholar
126 See Leur-Bloem, Case C-28/95 at para. 32.Google Scholar
127 See Case C-247/97, Schoonbroodt v. Belgian, 1998 E.C.R. I-8095, para. 15; Case C-222/01, British American Tobacco v. Hauptzollamt Krefeld, 2004 E.C.R. I-4683. But see Case C-2/97, IP, 1998 E.C.R. I-8597, paras. 59–62.Google Scholar
128 See Case C-1/99, Kofisa Italia v. Ministero delle Finanze, Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi, 2001 E.C.R. I-207, paras. 30–32; Case C-267/99, Adam, 2001, E.C.R. I-7467, paras. 27–32; Ritter, supra note 59, at 9.Google Scholar
129 See Case C-306/99, BIAO, 2003 E.C.R. I-1, para. 92.Google Scholar
130 AG Jacobs noted that the parties were unable to satisfactorily explain the approach of German courts. See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 40, at paras. 50, 61.Google Scholar
131 See Tridimas, supra note 124, at 36.Google Scholar
132 See Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo at para. 47, C-1/99, Kofisa Italia (Sept. 26, 2000), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
133 Kofisa Italia, Case C-1/99 at para. 31.Google Scholar
134 See Case C-3/04, Poseidon Chartering v. Marianne Zeeschip VOF, et. al., 2006 E.C.R. I-2505, para. 18.Google Scholar
135 See e.g. Case C-482/10, Cicala v. Regione Siciliana, 2011 E.C.R. I-14139, para. 18; Case C-203/09, Volvo Car Germany, 2010 E.C.R. I-10721, paras. 24, 25.Google Scholar
136 See ECJ, Case C-338/14, Quenon v. Beobank & Metlife Insurance, ECLI:EU:C:2015:795, paras. 16–18, Judgment of 3 December 2015; ECJ C-184/12, Unamar, ECLI:EU:C:2013:663, paras. 30–31, Judgment of 17 October 2013.Google Scholar
137 See e.g. ECJ, Case C-522/12, Isbir v. DB Services GmbH, ECLI:EU:C:2013:711, paras. 28–31, Judgment of 7 November 2013; Case C-352/08, Zwijnenburg, Modehuis A., 2010 E.C.R. I-4303, para. 33; ECJ, Case C-603/10 Pelati, ECLI:EU:C:2012:639, paras. 15–20, Judgment of 18 October 2012. The CJEU has been willing to disregard the intention of the legislature in Nolan, where it held that there was no Union interest to protect uniformity, because the EU legislature had stated unequivocally that the relevant Directive did not apply to a precise area in relation to which the UK made that Directive applicable. See ECJ, Case C-583/10, U.S.A. v. Nolan, ECLI:EU:C:2012:638, para. 56, Judgment of 18 October 2012.Google Scholar
138 See Case C-217/05, Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, 2006 E.C.R. I-11987, para. 22; C-280/06, ETI, 2007 E.C.R. I-10893, para. 24; ECJ, Case C-172/14, ING Pensii v. Consiliul Concurenței, ECLI:EU:C:2015:272, Judgment of 16 July 2015; Maxima Latvija, Case C-345/14 at para. 13. Those judgments can be contrasted with cases in which the CJEU applies the Kleinwort Benson criteria more clearly. See ECJ, Case C-32/11, Allianz v. Gazdasági Versenyhivatal, ECLI:EU:C:2013:160, Judgment of 14 March 2013; Case C-413/13, FNV Kiem v. Staat der Nederlanden, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2411, Judgment of 4 December 2014.Google Scholar
139 See Case C-470/13, Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt v. Közbeszerzési Hatóság Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2469, para. 25, Judgment of 18 December 2014.Google Scholar
140 See Case C-583/10, U.S.A. v. Nolan, ECLI:EU:C:2012:638, para. 48, 18 October 2012.Google Scholar
141 See id. at para. 49.Google Scholar
142 See Case C-310/10, Ministerul Justiţiei Și Libertărţilor Cetărţenești v. Agafiţei, 2011 E.C.R. I-5989, para. 43.Google Scholar
143 See Case C-488/13, Parva Investitsionna Banka and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2191, paras. 21–36, Judgment of 9 September 2014.Google Scholar
144 See ECJ, Case C-92/14, Tudoran, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2051, para. 41, Judgment of 3 July 2014; ECJ, Case C-139/12, Caixa d'Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona, ECLI:EU:C:2014:174, para. 46, Judgment of 20 March 2014; ECJ, Case C-351/14, Estrella Rodríguez Sánchez, ECLI:EU:C:2016:447, Judgment of 16 June 2016.Google Scholar
145 See Case C-482/10, Cicala, 2011 E.C.R. I-14139, para. 25.Google Scholar
146 See id. at para. 29.Google Scholar
147 See Case C-313/12, Romeo, ECLI:EU:C:2013:718, para. 33, Judgment of 7 November 2013; Case C-246/14, De Bellis, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2291, Judgment of 15 October 2014.Google Scholar
148 See Case C-313/12, Romeo, ECLI:EU:C:2013:718, para. 31–32, Judgment of 7 November 2013.Google Scholar
149 See Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo, supra note 132, at para. 22.Google Scholar
150 See the request for a reconsideration in Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro, supra 123, at para. 27; Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 40, at para. 1.Google Scholar
151 Twenty-three judgments with references to “Dzodzi” and twelve judgments with references to “Kleinwort Benson” were found relevant because the CJEU, and not the parties, that referred to these cases in relation to the jurisdiction of the CJEU or the admissibility of the questions and not so much in relation the material legal issues involved. Relevant references to “Leur Bloem” were found in nineteen judgments of which six also included a reference to “Dzodzi.” Searches conducted on Apr. 13, 2016 on curia.europa.eu.Google Scholar
152 Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 40, at para. 40.Google Scholar
153 AG are currently not questioning the approach of the CJEU, but primarily call for a greater consistency and a more careful examination. E.g. Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano at para. 28, C-6/01, Anomar (Feb. 11, 2003), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
154 See Opinion of Advocate General Kokott at para. 54, C-280/06, ETI (July 3, 2007), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/. The objective of achieving the single market is also often the idea behind the legislature's choice to use the wording as laid down in EU law for purely internal situations as well. See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 8, at para. 13 (articulating the argument of the Dutch State Secretary).Google Scholar
155 See e.g. AG Wahl's defense of the “relatively generous” approach by the CJEU in Opinion of Advocate General Wahl, supra note 70, at paras. 29–30. Lenaerts also held that the Dzodzi principle falls within the interpretative jurisdiction of the CJEU. See Lenaerts, Koen & Arts, Dirk, Procedural Law of the European Union, para. 6023 (Sweet & Maxwell 1999).Google Scholar
156 This was specifically brought up by AG Jacobs, one of the most vocal opponents of an all too welcoming CJEU approach. See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 8, at para. 69; Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 40, at paras. 62–63.Google Scholar
157 See Opinion of Advocate General Darmon, supra note 99, at paras. 8–9.Google Scholar
158 See Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro, supra 123, at paras. 25, 27; Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo, supra note 132, at paras. 33–35; Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 40, at para. 59.Google Scholar
159 Opinion of Advocate General Darmon, supra note 99, at para 12; Hjalte Rasmussen, Remedying the Crumbling EC Judicial System, 37 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 1083 (2000).Google Scholar
160 See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 8, at para. 69.Google Scholar
161 See id. at para. 44.Google Scholar
162 See id. at para. 50. For later reaffirmations, see e.g. Case C-413/13, NV Kunsten Informatie en Media, para. 18, (Dec. 4, 2014), https://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar
163 See id. at para. 52. See also Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 40, at paras. 52–57; Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo, supra note 132, at paras. 30–32.Google Scholar
164 See id. at paras. 53 and 58.Google Scholar
165 See id. at paras. 54–55.Google Scholar
166 See id. at para. 56; ECJ, Case C-221/11, Demirkan, ECLI:EU:C:2013:583, para. 47, Judgment of 24 September 2013.Google Scholar
167 See Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro, supra note 123, at para. 15.Google Scholar
168 See e.g. Case C-48/07, Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves, 2008 E.C.R. I-10627, para. 27; Joined Cases C-439/07 and C-499/07, KBC Bank, 2009 E.C.R. I-4409, para. 60; Case C-352/08, Zwijnenburg, Modehuis A., 2010 E.C.R. I-4303, para. 34; ECJ, Case C-603/10, Pelati, ECLI:EU:C:2012:639, para. 19, Judgment of 18 October 2012.Google Scholar
169 See Joined Cases 297/88 and C-197/89, Dzodzi, 1990 E.C.R. I-3763, at para. 42; Case C-28/95, Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen, 1997 E.C.R. I-4161, para. 33. E.g. Case C-48/07, Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves, 2008 E.C.R. I-10627, para. 27.Google Scholar
170 It is remarkable that the CJEU itself acknowledged in Fournier that it is only for the national court to give a meaning to provisions of national law “which it considers appropriate, without being bound in that regard by the meaning which must be attributed to the same expression as used in the Directive.” See Case C-73/89, Fournier, 1992 E.C.R. I-5621, para. 23. AG Tesauro held that this acknowledgment by the CJEU of the lacking binding effects “raise[s] serious doubts”. See Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro, supra note 123, at para. 24.Google Scholar
171 See Opinion 1/91, 1991 E.C.R. I-6079, para. 4; Case C-346/93, Kleinwort Benson, 1995 E.C.R. I-615, para. 24.Google Scholar
172 AG Darmon held that the CJEU should not give “advice of the kind which a legal expert is sometimes called upon to give in a domestic court when it is required to apply foreign law.” See Opinion of Advocate General Darmon, supra note 99., at para. 12. The absence of any binding force of EU law was also the reason for AG Mancini's refusal to answer questions in Thomasdünger. See Opinion of Advocate General Mancini, Case C-166/84, Thomasdünger (May 15, 1985), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
173 See ECJ, Case C-32/11, Allianz v. Gazdasági Versenyhivatal, ECLI:EU:C:2013:160, paras. 3–5, Judgment of 14 March 2013.Google Scholar
174 See id. at paras. 18 and 22.Google Scholar
175 See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 8, at para. 70; Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo, supra note 132, at para. 38. Tridimas also expressed doubts as to whether CJEU judgments are binding in cases where the facts fall outside the scope of EU law. See Tridimas, supra note 124, at 36.Google Scholar
176 See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 40, at para. 50; Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 8, at para. 43.Google Scholar
177 See supra notes 33–36; Jasper Krommendijk, “Open Sesame!” Improving Access to the CJEU by Obliging National Courts to Reason Their Refusals to Refer, 42 Eur. L. Rev. 57–58 (2017).Google Scholar
178 See Tridimas, supra note 124, at 37.Google Scholar
179 See ECJ, Case C-160/14, Ferreira da Silva v. Estados português, ECLI:EU:C:2015:565, paras. 44–45, Judgment of 9 September 2015; ECJ, Joined Cases C-72/14 and C-197/14, X and van Dijk, ECLI:EU:C:2015:564, Judgment of 9 September 2015; Dhahbi v Italy, App. No. 17120/09 (Apr. 8, 2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-142504; Schipani and Others v Italy, App. No. 38369/09 (Oct. 21, 2015), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-156258. See also Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 40, at para. 64.Google Scholar
180 This is also more in line with the CJEU's case law, beginning with Telemarsicabruzzo, finding that questions need not be answered because the referring court failed to clarify the factual and legislative context of its questions. See Joined Cases C-320/90 to 322/90, Telemarsicabruzzo, 1993 E.C.R. I-393; Case C-234/12, Sky Italia, ECLI:EU:C:2013:496, paras. 30–33. AG Jacobs considered the Dzodzi line of cases to be “irreconcilable” with this case law. See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 8, at para. 51.Google Scholar
181 See supra notes 139–148. See also ECJ, C-281/15, Sahyouni, ECLI:EU:C:2016:343, para. 25–33, Judgment of 12 May 2016; ECJ, Joined Cases C-692/15 to C-694/15, Security Service v. Ministero dell'Interno, ECLI:EU:C:2016:344, paras. 26–31, Judgment of 12 May 2016.Google Scholar
182 See generally Barnard & Sharpston, supra note 39.Google Scholar
183 See Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, supra note 81, at para. 53.Google Scholar
184 See Enchelmaier, supra note 100, at 617.Google Scholar
185 See Ritter, supra note 59, at 12.Google Scholar
186 See Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo, supra note 132, at para. 36.Google Scholar
187 See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 8, at para. 49; AG Darmon also noted that the unity of the EU legal order is not affected by purely internal situations. See Opinion of Advocate General Darmon, supra note 99, at paras. 8–9.Google Scholar
188 See Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo, supra note 132, at para. 41.Google Scholar
189 This is also desirable in the light of the potentially large number of situations in which Member States make EU law applicable outside the scope of EU law application. See Ritter, supra note 59, at 10; Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, supra note 8, at paras. 62, 66; Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro, supra 123, at para. 26.Google Scholar
190 See Case C-448/98, Guimont, 2000 E.C.R. I-10663.Google Scholar
191 See Opinion of Advocate General Saggio at para. 7, Case C-448/98, Guimont (Mar. 9, 2000), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/.Google Scholar
192 See Case C-448/98, Guimont, 2000 E.C.R. I-10663, para. 23.Google Scholar
193 See Ritter, supra note 59, at 8; Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, supra note 81, at para. 46.Google Scholar
194 See Enchelmaier, supra note 100, at 617; Ritter, supra note 59, at 9; Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, supra note 123, at para. 24.Google Scholar
195 E.g. Joined Cases C-94/04 and C-202/04, Cipolla v. Miloni, 2006 E.C.R. I-11421, para. 31; Case C-250/03, Mauri v. Ministero della Giustizia and Commissione per gli esami di avvocato presso la Corte d'appello di Milano, 2005 E.C.R. I-1267, para. 21.Google Scholar
196 See Opinion of Advocate General Wahl, supra note 70, at para. 42; See also Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to C-540/99, Reisch, 2002, E.C.R. I-2157, para. 26; C-451/03, Servizi Ausiliari Dottori Commercialisti, 2006 E.C.R. I-2941, para. 29 Case C-6/01, Anomar, 2003 E.C.R. I-8621, para. 41; Blanco Pérez, 2010 E.C.R. I-4629, paras. 35–36; C-280/06, ETI, 2007 E.C.R. I-10893, para. 20; Case C-300/01, Salzmann, 2003 E.C.R. I-4899, para. 39.Google Scholar
197 See ECJ, Case C-84/11, Susisalo, ECLI:EU:C:2012:374, para. 21, Judgment of 21 June 2012; Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, supra note 81, at para. 48.Google Scholar
198 See Joined Cases C-357/10 to C-359/10, Duomo Gpa, ECLI:EU:C:2012:283, para. 28, Judgment of 10 May 2012.Google Scholar
199 See ECJ, Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12, Venturini, ECLI:EU:C:2013:791, para. 26, Judgment of 5 December 2013; ECJ, C-470/11, Garkalns, ECLI:EU:C:2012:505, para. 20, Judgment of 19 July 2012.Google Scholar
200 Case C-380/05, Centro Europa 7 v. Ministero delle Comunicazioni e Autorità, 2008 E.C.R. I-349, para. 68–69.Google Scholar
201 See Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen at para. 17, Case C-539/11, Ottica New Line di Accardi Vincenzo (Jan. 30, 2013), https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/en/. See also ECJ, Case C-327/12, SOA Nazionale Costruttori, ECLI:EU:C:2013:827, para. 22, Judgment of 12 December 2013 (“Nothing in the file suggests that the main proceedings will not be settled by application of rules of Community law.”).Google Scholar
202 See Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, supra note 81, at para. 47.Google Scholar
203 See Omalet, Case C-245/09 at paras. 16–17; Opinion of Advocate General Wahl, supra note 70, at para. 45.Google Scholar
204 See ECJ, Case C-111/12, Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia, ECLI:EU:C:2013:100, paras. 34–35, Judgment of 21 February 2013.Google Scholar
205 See ECJ, Case C-92/14, Tudoran, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2051, para. 41, Judgment of 3 July 2014; ECJ, Case C-139/12, Caixa d'Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona, ECLI:EU:C:2014:174, para. 46, Judgment of 20 March 2014.Google Scholar
206 See ECJ, Case C-122/13, Paola C., ECLI:EU:C:2014:59, para. 15, Judgment of 30 January 2014.Google Scholar
207 See Enchelmaier, supra note 100, at 617.Google Scholar
208 See Ritter, supra note 59, at 4.Google Scholar
209 See Case 244/80, Foglia v Novello (II), 1981 E.C.R. 3045, para. 18; Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, supra note 123, at para. 24; Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, supra note 81, at para. 31; C. Ritter, supra note 59, at 11.Google Scholar
210 See Ritter, supra note 59, at 11; Caro de Soussa, supra note 1, at 176.Google Scholar
211 The merging of the CJEU's approach in relation to the second and third exception is to be welcomed as well. As mentioned, the Guimont principle is basically a more specific form of a renvoi. Abandoning the Guimont principle as a distinct category is therefore not to be pitied. See Ritter, supra note 59, at 12.Google Scholar
212 One alternative proposal is the application of a Schutznorm. This doctrine does, however, not yet have a solid position in EU law, so it seems more logical that the CJEU base itself on its previous case law and builds on the earlier developed criteria. See Prechal, supra note 12 and supra note 105.Google Scholar
213 See supra notes 33–36.Google Scholar
214 See Sarmiento, Daniel, The Purely Internal Situation in Free Movement Rules. Some Clarity at Last from the CJEU, EU Law Analysis, (Nov. 16, 2016), https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.nl/2016/11/the-purely-internal-situation-in-free.html.Google Scholar
215 See ECJ, Case C-268/15, Ullens de Schooten, ECLI:EU:C:2016:874, para. 54–55, Judgment of 15 November 2016; Joined Cases C-532/15 and ECJ, Case C-538/15, Eurosaneamientos, ECLI:EU:C:2016:932, paras. 46–48, Judgment of 8 December 2016.Google Scholar
216 See id. respectively at paras. 55 and para. 47. For earlier references to this article in relation to the purely internal situations, see ECJ, Joined Cases C-692/15 to C-694/15, Security Service v. Ministero dell'Interno, ECLI:EU:C:2016:344, paras. 18, Judgment of 12 May 2016; Case C-246/14, De Bellis, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2291, Judgment of 15 October 2014.Google Scholar
217 See Supremo, Tribuno, Case C-168/14, Grupo Itevelesa and others, ECLI:EU:C:2015:685, para. 36, Judgment of 3 June 2015.Google Scholar
218 See ECJ, Joined Cases C-162/12 and C-163/12, Airport Shuttle Express, ECLI:EU:C:2014:74, para. 48, Judgment of 13 Feb. 2014; ECJ, Joined Cases C-159/12 to C-161/12, Venturini, ECLI:EU:C:2013:791, para. 25–26, Judgment of 5 December 2013; Opinion of Advocate General Wahl, supra note 5, at para. 37.Google Scholar
219 The CJEU did so in a relatively extensive judgment of 73 paragraphs in which it carefully explained why the questions were inadmissible. At the same time, the CJEU was willing to point to its previous judgments that would be helpful for the national court in resolving its questions. See ECJ, Case C-351/14, Estrella Rodríguez Sánchez, ECLI:EU:C:2016:447, Judgment of 16 June 2016.Google Scholar
220 In the five-year period from September 13, 2011, to September 13, 2016, only twenty judgments of the CJEU were found where the CJEU used this possibility. Searched curia for “request for clarification” as well as “Article 101,” “rules of procedure,” and “clarification.” One explanation for this reluctance could be that national procedural law might require the referring court to reopen the case at a national level in order to hear the parties. It is unclear whether this fear is justified. In one case, it took 1.5 months before the national court answered the request, in another only 1 month. See ECJ, Case C-347/12, Wiering, ECLI:EU:C:2014:300, para. 14, Judgment of 8 May 2014; ECJ, Case 351/14, Estrella Rodríguez Sánchez, ECLI:EU:C:2016:447, paras. 41–42 Judgment of 16 June 2016.Google Scholar
221 See Marc de Werd, Dynamics at Play in the EU Preliminary Ruling Procedure, 22 Maastricht J. Eur. & Comp. L. 1, 152 (2015).Google Scholar
You have
Access
