I will be discussing whether the Spanish Medical Council should tinge Marias cutting for anterior control under article 234. The principle of expression 234 EC Treaty is to ensure that EC Law is apply and lay to restpreted uniformly through bug out the member states. Article 234 provides that a administration or a motor hotel must get up a matter of interpretation of the statute of bodies established by an spiel of the Council, where those statutes so provide. The preliminary ruling proceedings may serve as a mean to foster the rights, which citizens derive from fellowship right. This function is a very each(prenominal) in all-important(a) one since rulings made by the European appeal of evaluator ar wherefore binding on philander of justices in all section States. This ensures that the law is indeed uniform throughout the European Union.
The first suspicion that arose in my pass when reading the point was whether the SMCs interpretation of the law was correct; I believe that when the tribunal made their judgement they were taking Spanish law as more superior to EC law. Yet it I contend it is absolute that EC is more superior. Subsequently one would subscribe to that the interpretation is inaccurate, breach of EC law should prevail and wherefore there is an obligation to meet. If the SMC shadow make a conclusion like that without taking into consideration EC law then the uniformity the ECJ is aiming for is non there. Because the whole purpose of the ECJ and Article 234 is to throttle uniformity in the participation law. As long as there is no correct interpretation, it is a MUST to refer therefore the SMC is wrong in ruling that it is not inevitable. De Coster v College [ chemise C - 17 / 00]
The woo of Justice shall ensure that in interpreting and applying the Treaty the law is discovered. For this purpose the philander of Justice, inter alia, has jurisdiction to put on preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of the Treaty and the rigour and interpretation of the acts of the institutions of the society. The national lawcourt is authorised to request the act of Justice to give such a preliminary. In the fictitious character of Broekmeulen CAS [Case 246 / 80] a similar ruling was given as it was command that the Dutch medical council had the means to refer to the court of justice. in that respect is a clear separation of functions between national courts on the one hand and the court of justice of Justice on the other. The salute of Justice does not evaluate the reasons of a national court for deeming that the interpretation of a provision of Community law is necessary for self-aggrandising ideal in a pending exercise. It is for the Court of Justice to issue the interpretation of the provision and for the national court to apply it later on.
Case 5/77, Tedeschi/Denkavit, para 17-20
According to article 234(3) EC Treaty, a court is under the obligation to refer where a question relating to the interpretation or hardiness of Community law is raised in a quality pending forward a court or tribunal of a member-state against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy. Therefore it clear that the tribunal should in particular(prenominal) make a reference for preliminary ruling as it is vital such as in the case of Case 6/64, Costa/ENEL where it Cleary shows that SMCs decision does not mystify judical remedy. withal there ar exceptions to obligatory reference, the obligation for the highest court to refer may lose its absolute character in a number of cases.
However the highest court is not obliged to refer either if the question has not yet been answered in the case law of the Court of Justice, but the answer to that question is beyond all doubt. Before it comes to the conclusion that such is the case, the national court or tribunal must be convinced that the matter is every bit obvious both to the courts of the other member states and to the Court of Justice. In this respect the national court should bear in mind that. The interpretation of a provision of Community law involves a comparison of the different language versions of the provision concerned. Terms and concepts in Community law do not necessarily have the same meaning as the laws of the various member states; conjugate cases 28-30/62, Da Costa and Schaake.
Article 234(2) states that, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, requests the Court of Justice to give a ruling. This means that the Tribunal erect not choose whether they consider it unnecessary. Whenever a Court or Tribunal satisfies the criteria of Article 234 (3), whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, it has no discretion and it is required to refer the case to ECJ for a preliminary ruling.
The Court of Appeal and below have a choice, they may refer if they wish or may decide the case without any referral. Even courts at the bottom of the hierarchy can refer questions of law under Article 234, if they feel that a preliminary ruling is necessary to enable a judgment to be given. Lord Denning laid down the guidelines for discretionary referrals: undeniable means that the ruling would be conclusive in the case; if other matters remain to be decided then the ruling would not be considered necessary.
The Court of Justice decides on the validity of acts of the institutions of the Community, i.e. regulations, directives and decisions. The SMC may reject the grounds of invalidity, but it has no power to declare Community decisions to be void. However, if the SMC has serious doubts as to the validity of an act of a Community institution on which a national law or decision is based, the court may, in special cases, suspend the application of such act or may frame any other stave relief with regard to such act. The national court should subsequently refer the question of validity to the Court of Justice, setting out why it believes that the Community act must be considered invalid.
Joined cases C-143/88 and C-92/89, Zuckerfabrik, para. 23-32
The Court of Justice is the sole body, which has the competence to interpret Community law. The Court of Justice may not decide on questions relating to the interpretation or validity of pabulum of national law, nor is it up to the Court of Justice to apply Community law to the facts in the main action forwards a national court. However, the Court of Justice is prepared, within certain limits, to reformulate questions, which are as well as furthest-reaching.
Preliminary rulings do not bind courts in other cases. However, these courts should clear that the interpretation of the Court of Justice is incorporated in the provisions and principles of the Community law to which it relates. The binding effect of the interpretation then simply coincides with the binding effect of the provisions and principles to which it relates and which has to be observed by all the national courts of the member-states. Therefore a liaison is created between the EJC and the tribunal, in other words Marias case should be referred to sustain constant ruling right through the EC.
The courts confinement is to ensure that the law is applied uniformly in all Member States. And it does this by performing two key functions. The delegacy actions against Member States Is to hear cases to decide whether Member States have failed to make full obligations under the Treaties, these actions are usually initiated by the European Commission, although they can also be started by another Member State.
The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Union.
Opinions are issued by the Community institutions when giving an assessment of a given situation or learning in the Community or individual Member States. In some cases, they prepare the way for subsequent, goodly binding acts, or are a prerequisite for the institution of proceedings before the Court of Justice. The real significance of recommendations and opinions is political and moral.
In providing for judicial acts of this kind, the draftsmen of the Treaties judge that, given the prestige of the Community institutions and their broader view and wide noesis of conditions beyond the narrower national framework, those concerned would voluntarily comply with recommendations address to them and would react appropriately to the Community institutions assessment of a particular situation.
Recommendations and opinions can have indirect legal effect where they are a preliminary to subsequent mandatory instruments or where the yield institution has committed itself, thus generating legitimate expectations that must be met.
The concept of direct effect was developed by the European Court of Justice in the case of Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECJ. The ECJ indicated that the concept of direct effect was essential to ensure that citizens of the Community could compel Treaty obligations against Member States and thereby ensure that Community law was made effective in their national legal systems. The reasoning in the case makes it clear that the European Court of Justice considered that effective remedies were paramount in this new legal order. The case of Van Gend en Loos was also important in establishing the criteria for defining when a particular provision should be straightway effective.
Maria can rely on some Treaty articles to enforce her rights against another in the national courts. The prohibition on unlikeness between men and women applies not only to the action of human beings authorities, but also extends to all agreements.... Some Treaty provisions can produce vertical direct effect if, they are clear, precise and unconditional leaving no discretion to Member State as to implementation. The following case demonstrates this principle. Macarthys Ltd v Smith, [1979] ECJ and CA Wendy Smith was able to rely on a accord provision together with a Directive to sue her former(prenominal) employer for equal pay.
In the case of Van Duyn v Home confidence [1974] ECJ, It was held that the useful effect of directives would be weakened if individuals were prevented from relying on them before national courts. Since the directive laid down an obligation, which was not prevail over to any exception or condition, and by its nature did not require intervention on the part of the Community or Member State, it was to be regarded as directly effective conferring enforceable individual rights, which national courts must protect.
In conclusion, after referring to all relevant cases and treaty articles it is very evident that the SMC should make a referral to the court of justice, simply because it is the tribunals duty to do so. Legislation should be understand according to the relevant directives. National courts must as far as possible interpret national law in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the Directive. Von Colson v sphere Nordrhein-Westfahlen [1984] ECJ is a perfect example of this.
If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment