Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-kw98b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-24T05:58:40.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wide Open and Unguarded Stand our Gates: The CJEU and References for a Preliminary Ruling in Purely Internal Situations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Type
European Jurisprudence
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by German Law Journal, Inc. 

References

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. 5758 (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