The article deals with the question whether a state might be held liable for the infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights if its national court of last instance fails to implement the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union under the conditions laid down in Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and developed in the case-law of the Court. Relying on well-established (...) practice that an arbitrary decision not to refer a question for a preliminary ruling theoretically could infringe the right to a fair trial, the author analyses the practical application of the “arbitrariness rule” and discusses whether the European Court of Human Rights has established any specific criteria that national courts are required to bring into play in order to substantiate the decision not to refer. (shrink)

The article deals with the concept of the court’s fault in the action for damages against a state suffered due to infringement of European Union law. The author searches for the right position of the criterion in the system of the conditions of state liability and discusses whether European Union law establishes a uniform standard of fault, or at least the guidance on the application of the criterion that would enable uniform national judicial practices concerning state liability for the infringements (...) attributable to the courts of last instance. The article also analyses national legal regulation and jurisprudence of several Member States such as France, Belgium and Italy, providing the definitions of different forms of fault and (or) examples of their practical implementation. (shrink)

The article deals with the question whether a state might be held liable for the infringement of constitutional law if its national court of last instance violates the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union under the conditions laid down in Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and developed in the case-law of the Court. Relying on the well-established practice of the European Court (...) of Human Rights, which accepts that in theory an arbitrary decision not to refer a question for a preliminary ruling could infringe the right to a fair trial established in the ECHR, the author analyses whether constitutional courts of Germany, Czech Republic, Spain and Lithuania have elaborated the equivalent practice and if so, whether they have established any specific criteria that national courts are required to bring into play in order to substantiate the decision not to refer. (shrink)

The article discusses the possible consequences that can be faced by a Member State of the European Union if its national court does not comply with the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice. The TFEU does not specify any sanctions applicable to a state when its national court disregards its obligation under Article 267 TFEU. Therefore, the analysis focuses on the practice of the Court of Justice and its interpretation by scholars. At (...) the outset, the author analyses whether refraining from making a reference for a preliminary ruling can lead to the duty to pay damages to an individual. Taking into account the criteria of a sufficiently serious breach formulated in the Köbler case, the author comes to the conclusion that the infringement of the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling is one of the most important criteria in assessing whether a Member State has to pay damages for any loss suffered by an individual, but the infringement itself is not sufficient to make a state liable. (shrink)