Coitus Interruptus
Thu, May 13, 2010 posted by Pescatorius
Yesterday, May 12, the Conseil Constitutionnel has put an end to the Cour de Cassation’s reference, which was starting to become a considerable headache for many. You can read the judgment here. The Conseil has confirmed that the Cour de Cassation’s interpretation of the new “priority question” before the Conseil is flawed. Ordinary judges are still the sole responsible judicial authority to interpret EU Law, even after the Conseil has ruled on the constitutionality of a Law that may, also, be incompatible with EU Law.
It appears also that ordinary judges are empowered to raise the reference before the ECJ at any time, following traditional Rheinmühlen I and Simmenthal lines of reasoning.
Therefore, the debate is over.
But wasn’t it fun while it lasted?
- Pescatorius
May 13th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Thanks very much for this. Is the decision really online on the Conseil constitutionnel’s website? The link in your post leads to a decision relating to a statute on online gamlbling. I could not find the decision on the “priority question” elsewhere on the website either.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:59 am
I think the debate is not over completely. I guess it lasts as regards the question of priority of review - whether the ordained priority of the review in the light of domestic constitution is compatible with Simmenthal II (the question raised by the Belgian court, which I refer to in the post, but which is equally relevant for the French rules).
Also, can the ECJ take into account the Conseil d’Etat’s interpretation, if the only relevant interpretation of domestic law, which the ECJ takes into account in the context of deciding preliminary references, is that provided by the referring court?
May 13th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that paragraph 15 of the Conseil Constitutionel’s decision is stating that the reference to the ECJ does not necessarily have to wait for the Conseil’s judgement:
“Considérant, en dernier lieu, que l’article 61-1 de la Constitution et les articles 23-1 et suivants de l’ordonnance du 7 novembre 1958 susvisée ne privent pas davantage les juridictions administratives et judiciaires, y compris lorsqu’elles transmettent une question prioritaire de constitutionnalité, de la faculté ou, lorsque leurs décisions ne sont pas susceptibles d’un recours juridictionnel de droit interne, de l’obligation de saisir la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne d’une question préjudicielle en application de l’article 267 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne ;”
Having said that (and please anyone correct me if this is not what the Conseil is saying), I agree with Gnaeus Flavius that it is an open issue whether the ECJ should stick to the Cour de Cassation’s interpretation. However, the ECJ does not live in a bubble, even more so when French law and big French legal issues are concerned (it’s sad, yes; but that’s the way things are when French is the working language of the Court and francophones flood the institution). I am convinced that the ECJ is perfectly aware of the fact that the Cour was misguiding the ECJ quite intentionally, saying that article 88 of the French Constitution should be interpreted in a particular way. Now it happens that the Conseil Constitutionel, the REAL interpreter of the Constitution, has confirmed that the Cour de Cassation got it wrong.
Furthermore, I think it’s no coincidence that the Conseil Constitutionel has rendered this decision, and in such detailed terms. It is practically quashing the order for reference of the Cour de Cassation.
But isn’t that taking us into a Caresio-esque type of scenario?
May 13th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Gordon Keck-o:
Thank you for the correction, I admit I did not read the judgment closely when I commented (too hastily!) on Pescatorius’ post. However, it seems to me that another part of the CC’s judgment is more relevant in respect of what you suggest:
14. Considérant, en deuxième lieu, qu’il ressort des termes mêmes de l’article 23-3 de l’ordonnance du 7 novembre 1958 susvisée que le juge qui transmet une question prioritaire de constitutionnalité, dont la durée d’examen est strictement encadrée, peut, d’une part, statuer sans attendre la décision relative à la question prioritaire de constitutionnalité si la loi ou le règlement prévoit qu’il statue dans un délai déterminé ou en urgence et, d’autre part, prendre toutes les mesures provisoires ou conservatoires nécessaires ; qu’il peut ainsi suspendre immédiatement tout éventuel effet de la loi incompatible avec le droit de l’Union, assurer la préservation des droits que les justiciables tiennent des engagements internationaux et européens de la France et garantir la pleine efficacité de la décision juridictionnelle à intervenir ; que l’article 61-1 de la Constitution pas plus que les articles 23 1 et suivants de l’ordonnance du 7 novembre 1958 susvisée ne font obstacle à ce que le juge saisi d’un litige dans lequel est invoquée l’incompatibilité d’une loi avec le droit de l’Union européenne fasse, à tout moment, ce qui est nécessaire pour empêcher que des dispositions législatives qui feraient obstacle à la pleine efficacité des normes de l’Union soient appliquées dans ce litige ;
The interesting difference from e.g. BVerfG (or the Czech CC) is that applicability of the provision in question is not a condition for admissibility of the constitutional question to the CC. So the CC does not face the dilemma of these courts, i.e. once the provision is incompatible with EU law (and due to Simmenthal immediately to be set aside), it can never get to the constitutional court.
May 13th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
You are right, Gnaeus, but paragraph 14 seems to be concerned with the interim-measure context. However, paragraph 15 appears to settle an even more delicate aspect: the pre-priority question situation. It appears from yesterday’s judgment (and I might be wrong) that the judge can face an issue of both constitutionality and EU Law, and, even before taking into account whether it can make the reference to the Conseil Constitutionel, the judge CAN raise a reference to the ECJ. That definitely fixes any Simmenthal or Rheinmühlen I type of problem; and it should also give a reply to the ECJ in the case raised by the Cour de Cassation.
May 13th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Is the debate really over? Paragraph 15 does not say that the national judge can make a reference BEFORE he/she raises a QPC: it just says that he/she is not prevented from making a reference. Period.
I may be missing something, but it seems to me that the judgment can be read as merely confirming that the judge is allowed to make a reference: the judgment is perfectly compatible with the idea that the judge can make a reference only AFTER the QPC was raised.
May 13th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Rheinmühlen I did never say that the reference could be made before, after or at the same time as any other national procedural requirement. It simply said, as the Conseil is now saying, that a national judge has a very wide discretion and it is free to make the reference whenever it finds it fit. In Rheinmühlen I terms, yesterday’s decision sounds like perfectly good Law.
But of course, you are right, Tesaurus: maybe the ECJ needs to intervene and clarify this point. Although I think that now, in the abstract, it is now perfectly compatible with ECJ case-law.
May 14th, 2010 at 9:51 am
I think the CC’s response to the “priority question” can be inferred from connecting paras. 14 and 15. I think that by stressing the limited time (explicitly prescribed by the provision) for answering the constitutinal question in fact does not bare a holder of EU rights from their effective application. In other words, the CC - if I read it correctly (and thank you again for raising up this issue, Gordon( - says, that from the EU perspective, the constitutionality question is just a little complication (which can, furthermore, be ressolved by granting interim measures).
May 14th, 2010 at 10:20 am
That’s exactly right, Gnaeus. I think you spotted it.
If that’s the case, then the ECJ still has a judgment to deliver. After all, it might sound good enough in the French case, but it’s definitely a bad option in other Member States, where a question of constitutionality might take years to be delivered. In those circumstances, the Zuckerfabrik interim solution is not really an option.
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:32 am
The ECJ today handed down its judgment following the Cour de Cassation’s reference.
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=fr&newform=newform&Submit=Rechercher&jurcdj=jurcdj&docj=docj&typeord=ALL&numaff=188%2F10&ddatefs=&mdatefs=&ydatefs=&ddatefe=&mdatefe=&ydatefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100
While the ECJ does not expressly rule that the Cour de Cassation’s interpretation of the new “priority question” before the Conseil is flawed, in practice it confirms the Conseil Constitutionnel’s finding that ordinary judges are not precluded from making a reference to the ECJ at any time.