C-188/10 & C-189/10 Aziz Melki and Selim Abdeli [2010]
Share
C-188/10 and C-189/10 Aziz Melki and Selim Abdeli [2010] ECR I-5667 involves a pivotal interaction between national laws regarding constitutional challenges and the EU legal framework.
Under the French Constitution, any challenge to its constitutionality must be referred to the French Constitutional Council. In a specific case addressing the constitutionality of border checks, the French Court of Cassation sought guidance from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on whether Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which outlines the preliminary reference procedure, prohibits legislation requiring courts to submit matters of constitutionality to the Constitutional Council.
The ECJ ruled that Article 267 TFEU does indeed preclude member state legislation that establishes an interlocutory procedure for the review of the constitutionality of national laws if the priority nature of the procedure prevents other national courts from making preliminary references to the ECJ. This prohibition extends to situations where the law cannot be set aside until after the conclusion of such an interlocutory procedure if it is found to be contrary to EU law.
However, the ECJ clarified that Article 267 TFEU does not preclude interlocutory procedures that do not immediately disapply a national law. Such procedures are acceptable as long as two conditions are met:
In a separate case, the French Constitutional Court asserted that the interlocutory procedure is compatible with EU law and proposed the two conditions that were eventually accepted by the ECJ. This case underscores the importance of accommodation and dialogue between national courts and the ECJ. It exemplifies the collaborative approach where the ECJ acknowledges the legitimacy of national procedures under certain conditions, fostering a cooperative relationship between national legal systems and the EU legal framework. The case serves as an illustration of the nuanced interaction between national constitutional requirements and EU law, promoting a balance between effective enforcement of EU rights and respect for national legal traditions.
Under the French Constitution, any challenge to its constitutionality must be referred to the French Constitutional Council. In a specific case addressing the constitutionality of border checks, the French Court of Cassation sought guidance from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on whether Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which outlines the preliminary reference procedure, prohibits legislation requiring courts to submit matters of constitutionality to the Constitutional Council.
The ECJ ruled that Article 267 TFEU does indeed preclude member state legislation that establishes an interlocutory procedure for the review of the constitutionality of national laws if the priority nature of the procedure prevents other national courts from making preliminary references to the ECJ. This prohibition extends to situations where the law cannot be set aside until after the conclusion of such an interlocutory procedure if it is found to be contrary to EU law.
However, the ECJ clarified that Article 267 TFEU does not preclude interlocutory procedures that do not immediately disapply a national law. Such procedures are acceptable as long as two conditions are met:
- The court implementing the procedure can take any necessary measures to ensure provisional judicial protection of the rights conferred under EU law.
- The court has the authority to disapply the national law at the conclusion of the interlocutory procedure if it determines that the law is contrary to EU law.
In a separate case, the French Constitutional Court asserted that the interlocutory procedure is compatible with EU law and proposed the two conditions that were eventually accepted by the ECJ. This case underscores the importance of accommodation and dialogue between national courts and the ECJ. It exemplifies the collaborative approach where the ECJ acknowledges the legitimacy of national procedures under certain conditions, fostering a cooperative relationship between national legal systems and the EU legal framework. The case serves as an illustration of the nuanced interaction between national constitutional requirements and EU law, promoting a balance between effective enforcement of EU rights and respect for national legal traditions.
