1. Part XI – Preliminary procedures
Ch. 1 – Art. 267 TFEU: overview and main dichotomy
 Relationship between national courts and the CJ at the core of the procedure
Unlike the US, the EU did not develop an extensive system of federal courts designed to apply EU law; yet all national courts must apply EU law in settling internal disputes on the basis of a system of cooperative federalism where national courts and the CJ collaborate in the adjudication of a single case
Major changes brought by this procedure, amongst which direct effect and supremacy
Preliminary: questions posed by national courts to the CJ that precede the final application of EU law by them
The CJ does not decide directly the case: indirect actions and rulings
CJ and not the GC
But Art TFEU 
Dichotomy
Interpretation of the Treaty: not of national law
Validity and interpretation of acts (binding and non binding)

2. Part XI – Preliminary procedures Ch. 2 – Notion of court and tribunal
Courts or tribunals: same meaning but terms not always employed in all MS
Up to the CJ to decide who falls under the notion
Body established by law?
Is it permanent?
Is its jurisdiction compulsory?
Does it apply the rules of law?
Is it independent?
Examples
Arbitration
Constitutional courts
Bar Council
Administrative authorities
International courts and tribunals

3. In both cases ex officio or upon the request of a party
Part XI – Preliminary procedures
Ch. 3 – Discretion or obligation to refer?
Discretion
Obligation
To prevent the establishing of a national case law inconsistent with EU law
In both cases ex officio or upon the request of a party
When national judges (of last instance and not) do not have to refer the matter before the CJ?
Decision of the CJ not necessary to settle the case
The CJ has already ruled on the same matter (not the same facts): it is for the national court to apply the prior ruling (but in reality not); the creation of a precedent alike system increases and fosters the CJ’s powers
No doubt about the interpretation/validity of the EU measure: acte clair

4. Part XI – Preliminary procedures Ch. 4 – Role and powers of the CJ
Costa and for the following decade
Power to correct improperly framed references
Afterwards
CJ ultimate authority to accept or not the request coming from national judges…it may also decline to give rulings if:
hypothetical cases – waste of time + risky for the coherence of the judgments and the clearness of its implications
question raised not relevant for the resolution of the dispute
questions not sufficiently clearly raised and elaborated
facts not sufficiently clear

5. Part XI – Preliminary procedures Ch. 5 – Nature of the rulings
Validity
Interpretation but not application, which should remain a matter for national courts
The boundaries between interpretation and application are weak
The more the interpretation is precise and detailed the more interpretation tends to overlap with application
The more it is detailed the more national courts merely execute the decision
In reality the CJ has often assessed whether national laws violated EU law although it should not do so
Sunday trading saga, decentralization and then centralization of the proportionality principle…crossed the line between interpretation and application
The CJ decides whether to apply the expedited procedure and urgent procedure in accordance with Art. 23a of the Statute when the nature of the case and exceptional circumstances require it to be handled quickly
Only within AFSJ

6. National courts must stay the proceedings
Part XI – Preliminary procedures
Ch. 6 – Legal status and effects of preliminary rulings
Binding effects on the national judge who referred the matter otherwise application of Art. 258 TFEU
Interpretation: erga omnes effect, should there be the same point of law but facts and national procedures would be different? Yes. Why? Need for uniformity
Ex tunc effects with the exception of the relevant economic effects produced by the judgment in cases where the legal situations were created in bona fide in compliance with national law which was considered until that moment in compliance with EU law
Validity: if it is declared, possibility for other reasons to ask for a preliminary ruling; if invalidity it happens like in respect to Art. 263 TFEU: erga omnes
In case of a declaration of invalidity, all instruments adopted based on it are invalid and EU institutions must rectify the law
National courts must stay the proceedings

7. Principal way to challenge EU law provisions
Part XII – Art. 263 TFEU Annulment proceedings (review of legality)
Ch. 1 – Nature of the acts and standing
Principal way to challenge EU law provisions
Amended with Lisbon to ensure greater effectiveness of EU law, especially as far as individuals are concerned
Indirect hypothesis for individuals: art. 267 TFEU
CJ and GC
Nature of bodies whose acts are subject to review
Nature of applicants (privileged, quasi privileged and non privileged applicants)

8. Part XII – Art. 263 TFEU Annulment proceedings (review of legality)
Ch. 2 – Legal grounds
Lack of competence
Infringement of an essential procedural requirement (right to be heard, consultation and participation, duty to give reasons)
Infringement of the treaty or any rule of law relating to its application (proportionality, non discrimination, transparency)
Misuse of power (adoption by an EU institution of a measure with the exclusive or main aim of achieving an end other than that stated)

9. void means ex tunc and erga omnes
Part XII – Art. 263 TFEU Annulment proceedings (review of legality)
Ch. 3 – Consequences of illegality
Art. 264 TFEU
void means ex tunc and erga omnes
Art. 266 TFEU: eradicating the effects that were produced

10. Part XII – Art. 263 TFEU Annulment proceedings (review of legality)
Ch. 4 – Non privileged applicants
A natural or legal person can bring an action in three types of cases
The addressee of a decision can challenge it before the CJ or the GC (act addressed to him/her)
An act can be challenged when it is of direct and individual concern to the natural or legal person or persons (not being addressed at a specific individual): not only decisions but also provisions in regulations and directives
A regulatory act can be challenged if the claimant proves that it had a direct (not individual) concern
What is the meaning of ‘regulatory’? Legislative acts or not? Individual rights or democracy?
Direct concern
A measure is of direct concern where it directly affects the legal situation of the applicant and leaves no discretion to the addressees of the measure who are entrusted with its implementation
There must be a direct link between the act of the EU institution and the damage inflicted on the applicant
The interest safeguarded must be a legal entitlement rather than any other form of interest
Individual concern
Plaumann: the effects must be peculiar to the applicant(s) as differentiated from all other persons
Very strict test: anybody who is part of an open group of persons