¹ Arnull, Anthony, Keeping Their Heads Above Water? European Law in the House of Lords, in From House of Lords to Supreme Court. Judges, Jurists and the Process of Judging 129 (James Lee ed., 2011).Google Scholar

² Lord Denning MR in Shields v. E Coomes (Holdings) Ltd. [1979] 1 All ER 456, 462.Google Scholar

³ See HP Bulmer Ltd & Anor v. J. Bollinger SA & Ors [1974] EWCA Civ 14 (22 May 1974), http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1974/14.html&query=Bulmer+and+v+and+Bollinger+and+%281974%29&method=boolean.Google Scholar

⁴ “Le rénvoi prejudiciel n'est pas un recours mais un mécanisme, une procedure. Il n'est pas demandé à la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne de se pronunce sur un litige, ni a fortiori de le trancher, mais de “dire le droit.” Le renvoi préjudiciel institue un lien entre le juge national et le juge communautaire, un pont assurant un dialogue qui s'établit sur les bases d'une coopération constructive entre deux ordres jurisdictionnel saux fins d'assurer l'application uniforme du droit de l'Union sur l'ensemble de son territoire.” George Vandersanden, Renvoi prejudiciel en droit europeen, repertoire pratique du droit belge 9 (2013).Google Scholar

⁵ Dicey, Albert Venn, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution 72 (1885).Google Scholar

⁶ Case C–6/64, Costa v. ENEL, 1964 E.C.R. 585.Google Scholar

⁷ See Eleftheriadis, Pavlos, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Constitution, 22/2 Canadian J. l. & Jurisprudence, 267-90 (2009).Google Scholar

⁸ Case C–434/09, Shirley McCarthy v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2011 E.C.R. I–03375.Google Scholar

⁹ Leyland, Peter, The Constitution of United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis 202 (2012).Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Malleson, Kate, The Evolving Role of the UK Supreme Court, Public Law 754 (2011).Google Scholar

¹¹ Craig, Paul, Accountability and Judicial Review in the UK and EU: Central Precepts, in Accountability in Contemporary Constitution 192 (Nicholas Bamforth and Peter Leyland eds., 2013).Google Scholar

¹² Id. at 193.Google Scholar

¹³ Malleson, supra note 10, at 771.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Case C–213/89, The Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others, 1990 E.C.R. I–02433.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Drewry, Gavin, The Jurisprudence of British Euroscepticism: A Strange Story of Fish and Vegetables, 3/2 Utrecht L. Rev. 105 (2007).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Arnull, supra note 1, at 137.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Craig, Paul, Sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament after Factortame, 11 Y.B. Eur. L. (YEL) 221 (1991).Google Scholar

¹⁸ See www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See leyland, supra note 9, at 54.Google Scholar

²⁰ Romboli, R., Corte di Giustizia e giudici nazionali: il rinvio pregiudiziale come strumento di dialogo, in Nuove strategie per lo sviluppo democratico e l'integrazione politica in Europa 431 (Adriana Ciancio ed., 2014).Google Scholar

²¹ Eleftheriadis, supra note 7.Google Scholar

²² Art. 42, Supreme Court Rules 2009: “(1) Where it is contended on an application for permission to appeal that it raises a question of Community law which should be the subject of a reference under Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and permission to appeal is refused, the panel of Justices will give brief reasons for its decision.”Google Scholar

(2) Where on an application for permission to appeal a panel of Justices decides to make a reference under Article 234 before determining the application, it will give consequential directions as to the form of the reference and the staying of the application (but it may if it thinks fit dispose of other parts of the application at once).Google Scholar

(3) Where at the hearing of an appeal the Court decides to make a reference under Article 234 it will give consequential directions as to the form of the reference and the staying of the appeal (but it may if it thinks fit dispose of other parts of the appeal at once).Google Scholar

(4) An order of the Court shall be prepared and sealed by the Registrar to record any decision made under this rule.”Google Scholar

²³ Case C–54/11, JP Morgan Chase Bank and J.P. Morgan Securities (July 5, 2011), http://curia.europa.eu/. In this case, the UKSC was sent a copy of the judgment of 12 May 2011 in Case C–144/10 Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe, 2011 E.C.R. I–03961 by the Registry of the Court. This asked the UKSC whether, considering that judgment, it wished to maintain its reference for a preliminary ruling. One month later, the UKSC informed the Court that it did not wish to maintain the reference.Google Scholar

²⁴ Case C–434/09, Shirley McCarthy v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2011 E.C.R. I–03375.Google Scholar

²⁵ Case C–360/13, Public Relations Consultants Association LTD. v. The Newspaper Licensing Agency LTD, (June 5, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/; Case C–260/11, Edwards and Pallikaropoulos v. Environment Agency, (Apr. 11, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

²⁶ Case C–155/10, Williams v. British Airways, 2011 E.C.R. I-08409; Case C–426/11, Alemo Herron v. Parkwood Leisure LTD., (July 18, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/; Case C–507/12, Saint Prix v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (June 19, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/; Case C–393/10, O'Brien v. Ministry of Justice, (Mar. 1, 2012), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

²⁷ Case C–362/12, Test Claimants v. Commissioners, (Dec. 12, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

²⁸ Case C–404/13, ClientEarth v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, (Nov. 28, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

²⁹ Case C–71/10, Office of Communications v. The Information Commissioner, 2011 E.C.R. I-07205; Case C–360/13, Public Relations Consultants Association LTD. v. The Newspaper Licensing Agency LTD., (June 5, 2014), http://curia.europa.eu/; Case C–260/11, Edwards and Pallikaropoulos v. Environment Agency, (Apr. 11, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Case C–77/83, CILFIT v. Ministry of Health, 1984 E.C.R. I–01257.Google Scholar

³¹ Thomas de la Mare and Catherine Donnelly, Preliminary rulings and EU Legal Integration: Evolution and Stasis, in The Evolution of EU Law 363, 382 (Paul Craig & Grainne De Búrca eds., 2011).Google Scholar

³² “(1) Under (a) articles 7 of Council Directives 93/104/EC and 2003/88/EC and (b) clause 3 of the European Agreement annexed to the Council Directive 2000/79/EC: (i) to what, if any, extent does European law define or lay down any requirements as to the nature and/or level of the payments required to be made in respect of periods of paid annual leave; and (ii) to what, if any, extent may member states determine how such payments are to be calculated?Google Scholar

(2) In particular, is it sufficient that, under national law and/or practice and/or under the collective agreements and/or contractual arrangements negotiated between employers and workers, the payment made enables and encourages the worker to take and to enjoy, in the fullest sense of these words, his or her annual leave; and does not involve any sensible risk that the worker will not do so?Google Scholar

(3) Or is it required that the pay should either (a) correspond precisely with or (b) be broadly comparable to the worker's “normal” pay?Google Scholar

Further, in the event of an affirmative answer to question (3)(a) or (b):Google Scholar

(4) Is the relevant measure or comparison: (a) pay that the worker would have earned during the particular leave period if he or she had been working, instead of on leave, or (b) pay which he or she was earning during some other, and if so what, period when he or she was working?Google Scholar

(5) How should “normal” or “comparable” pay be assessed in circumstances where: (a) a worker's remuneration while working is supplemented if and to the extent that he or she engages in a particular activity; (b) where there is an annual or other limit on the extent to which, or time during which, the worker may engage in that activity, and that limit has been already exceeded or almost exceeded at the time(s) when annual leave is taken, so that the worker would not in fact have been permitted to engage in that activity had he been working, instead of on leave?”Google Scholar

³³ Case C–155/10, Williams v. British Airways, 2011 E.C.R. I–08409, para. 31.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Lalor-Harbord, Sophie, Case-Comment: British Airways plc. v. Williams and Others [2012] UKSC 43, available at http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-british-airways-plc-v-williams-and-others-2012-uksfc-43/.Google Scholar

³⁵ Case C–85/96, María Martínez Sala, 1998 E.C.R. I–02691. This and the other main citizenship cases (e.g. Case C–34/09, Zambrano, 2011 E.C.R. I–01177; Case C–256/11, Dereci, 2011 E.C.R. I–11315) are commented also by Michael Dougan, The Bubble that burst: Exploring the legitimacy of the Case Law on the Free Movement of Union Citizens, in Judging Europe's Judges: The Legitimacy of the Case Law of the Court of Justice 127 (Maurice Adams, Henri de Waele, Johan Meeusen, & Gert Straetmans eds., 2013).Google Scholar

³⁶ I borrow this expression from Andrea Biondi and Silvia Bartolini, Recent Developments in Luxembourg: The Activities of the Court's in 2012, 20 Eur. Pub. L. I–14 (2014).Google Scholar

³⁷ Citizenship is the main subject of other preliminary references such as the cases referred to, supra note 35.Google Scholar

³⁸ Opinion of Advocate General Kokott at para. 1, Case C–434/09, Shirley McCarthy v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Nov. 25, 2010).Google Scholar

³⁹ UK Immigration rules provide that nationals of third countries who do not have leave to remain in the United Kingdom also do not meet the requirements to be granted leave to remain under those Rules as the spouse of a person settled in the United Kingdom.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Case C–434/09, Shirley McCarthy v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2011 E.C.R. I–03375, para. 31.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Arnull, supra note 1 (examining and taking stock of the preliminary references issued by the House of Lords).Google Scholar

⁴² Golub, Jonathan, Modelling Judicial Dialogue in the European Community: The Quantitative Basis of Preliminary References to the ECJ, EUI Working Paper RSC No 96/58, 1.Google Scholar

⁴³ From this perspective, see Ruggeri, Antonio, Ragionando sui possibili sviluppi dei rapporti tra le Corti europee e i giudici nazionali (con specifico riguardo all'adesione dell'Unione alla CEDU e all'entrata in vigore del Prot. 16), available at http://www.rivistaaic.it/articolorivista/ragionando-sui-possibili-sviluppi-dei-rapporti-tra-le-corti-europee-e-i-giudici.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Mance, Lord, The Interface Between National and European Law, 4 Eur. L. Rev. 437, 456 (2013). He adds: “In whatever way the European Union may develop, I believe that the United Kingdom's contributions on both the legislative and the legal scenes have been and can in future continue to be pre-eminent.”Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Malleson, supra note 10, at 761.Google Scholar