No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
European Integration Through Preliminary Rulings? The Case of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Extract
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 preliminary reference procedure under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) is instrumental for the so-called “judicial dialogue” within the European Union (EU). The goals of the preliminary reference procedure are to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EU law and to contribute to the harmonious development of the law throughout the EU. It was through the preliminary reference procedure to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that the principles of direct effect and supremacy were developed. It took many years before the first request by a Constitutional Court was sent to the CJEU. So far, the Constitutional Courts of Belgium, Austria, Lithuania, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and most recently Slovenia, have sent requests for preliminary rulings to the CJEU. By far the most active of these in sending requests has been the Belgian Court. The Portuguese Constitutional Court has indicated that it can request preliminary rulings from the CJEU but is yet to do so. In the other Member States (MS) with Constitutional Courts, references have not been sent yet, although worthy occasions in terms of EU-law-related cases have occurred, as also observed in various contributions in this special issue. These MSs include Bulgaria.
- Type
- Part Four
- Information
- German Law Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 6: Special issue – Preliminary References to the Court of Justice of The European Union by Constitutional Courts , December 2015 , pp. 1591 - 1622
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 30 March 2010, OJ C83/47, 2010.Google Scholar
2 European Court of Justice, The Future of the Judicial System of the European Union (Luxembourg, 1999) 21–22.Google Scholar
3 Paul Craig & Gráinne de Burca, Eu Law: Text, Cases and Materials 442 (2011).Google Scholar
4 Cour d'Arbitrage, 19 February 1997, no. 6/97.Google Scholar
5 Verfassungsgerichtshof, 10 March 1999, B 2251/97, B 2594/97.Google Scholar
6 Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas, 8 May 2007, Case No. 47/04.Google Scholar
7 Corte Costituzionale, sentenza no. 102/2008 and ordinanza no. 103/2008. For a discussion on this first reference, see Fontanelli, Filippo & Martinico, Giuseppe, Between Procedural Impermeability and Constitutional Openness: The Italian Constitutional Court and Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice, 16 Eur. L. J. 345 (2010). Recently the Corte Costituzionale sent a request for the first time arising from incidenter proceedings—Corte Costituzionale, ordinanza no. 207/2013.Google Scholar
8 Tribunal Constitucional, 9 June 2011, Order ATC 86/2011.Google Scholar
9 Admittedly, not a Constitutional Court as such but it can be equated to one—Conseil Constitutionnel, Décision n° 2013–314P QPC 4 April 2013.Google Scholar
10 Press release no. 9/2014 of 7 February 2014, Principal Proceedings ESM/ECB: Pronouncement of the Judgment and Referral for a Preliminary Ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/press/bvg14-009en.html.Google Scholar
11 Ustavnega sodišča št. U-I-295/13 from 6 November 2014. For a short note, See Bardutzky, S., The first preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the EU by the Slovenian Constitutional Court: the case of the Commission's Banking Communication, available at http://eurocrisislaw.eui.eu/news/the-first-preliminary-reference-to-the-court-of-justice-of-the-eu-by-the-slovenian-constitutional-court-the-case-of-the-commissions-banking-communication/.Google Scholar
12 Martinico, Giuseppe, A (Dis-) Order of Disagreements: Exploring the nature of constitutional conflicts in EU law, 3 Sant’ Anna Legal Studies, Research Paper 10 (2013).Google Scholar
13 Martinico, Giuseppe, Preliminary reference and Constitutional Courts: Are you in the mood for dialogue?, 10 Tilburg Institute of Comparative and Transnational Law, Working Paper 5 (2009).Google Scholar
14 Tribunal Constitucional Portugal, Sentencia 163/1990, 23 May 1990; Garcia, Ricardo Alonso, Los Tribunales Constitutionales y el Control del Derecho Interno Conectado con el Comunitario, 2 Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales 153, 168 (2005); see also Catarina Sarmento e Castro & Filipa Vicente Silva, Cooperation of Constitutional Courts in Europe—Current Situation and Perspectives, National Report on the Portuguese Constitutional Court, XVI Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts 21 (2014).Google Scholar
15 See, e.g., Hungarian Constitutional Court, Decision 17/2004 (V. 25) AB; Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky, Decision PI US 8/04-202, 18 October 2005; Curtea Constituţionalâ a României, Decizia no.1258, 8 October 2009. Such cases from the BCC are considered in Section C of this paper.Google Scholar
16 Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, promulgated SG 56 of 13 July 1991, entered into force 13 July 1991 [hereinafter Bulgarian Constitution].Google Scholar
17 Ganev, Venelin I., The Bulgarian Constitutional Court, 1991–1997: A Success Story in Context, 55 Eur.-Asia Studs. 597, 598 (2003).Google Scholar
18 Емилия Друмева, Конституционно право 561 (2013) [Translated by the author: Emilia Drumeva, Constitutional Law]; Schwartz, Herman, The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Communist Europe 168 (2002).Google Scholar
19 Constitution of the Principality of Bulgaria, adopted 16 April 1879, art 49.Google Scholar
20 Schwartz, supra note 18, at 165.Google Scholar
21 Drumeva, supra note 18. Certain powers of the Council of State during its short existence under the “regime of credentials” (1881-1883) have been considered as an insignificant exception to this tradition.Google Scholar
22 On the political environment, see Schwartz, supra note 18, at 167.Google Scholar
23 Case C–246/80, Broeckmeulen v Huisarts Registratie Commissie, 1981 E.C.R. 2311.Google Scholar
24 Case C–222/13, TDC A/S v Erhvervsstyrelsen, 2014 E.C.R. I–00000 (27).Google Scholar
25 Case 61/65, Vaassen-Göbbels, 1966 E.C.R. 26, para. 273; Case C–54/96, Dorsch Consult, 1997 E.C.R. I–4961, para. 23; Joined Cases C–110/98 to C–147/98, Gabalfrisa and Others, 2000 E.C.R. I–1577, para. 33; Case C–178/99, Salzmann, 2001 E.C.R. I-4421, para. 13; Case C–182/00, Lutz and Others, 2002 E.C.R. I-547, para. 12; Case C–195/06, Österreichischer Rundfunk, 2007 E.C.R. I-8817, para. 19.Google Scholar
26 Case C–18/93, Corsica Ferries, 1994 E.C.R. I-1783, para.12; Case C–210/06, Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt., 2008 E.C.R. I–9641, para. 56.Google Scholar
27 Case C–96/04, Criminal proceedings against Standesamt Stadt Niebüll, 2006 E.C.R. I–3561, para. 13.Google Scholar
28 See, e.g., Александър Корнезов, Преосмисляне на контрола за конституционосъобразност в светлината на правоото на Европейския съюз [Alexander Kornezov, Rethinking of the constitutional review in light of the law of the European Union], 2 Правна мисъл 58 (2007).Google Scholar
29 Law on the Constitutional Court SG 67 of 16 August 1991 as last amended SG 50 of 3 July 2012.Google Scholar
30 Id. at Article 1.Google Scholar
31 Fontanelli & Martinico, supra note 7, at 354–56.Google Scholar
32 See, e.g., Corte Costituzionale, sentenza no. 102/2008.Google Scholar
33 Kornezov, supra note 28, at 61.Google Scholar
34 Id. Google Scholar
35 Id. Google Scholar
36 See generally Case C–104/79, Foglia v Novello, 1980 E.C.R. I–745.Google Scholar
37 Fontanelli & Martinico, supra note 7, at 355.Google Scholar
38 In general such proceedings are quite rare.Google Scholar
39 Case C–26/62, Van Gend en Loos, 1962 E.C.R. 1; Case C–6/64, Costa v. ENEL, 1964 E.C.R. 585; Case C–106/77 Simmenthal, 1978 E.C.R. 629.Google Scholar
40 See generally Case C–166/73, Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf v. Einfuhr- und Vorratstelle für Getreide, 1974 E.C.R. 33.Google Scholar
41 Case C–11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 1970 E.C.R. 1125, para. 3; Case C–409/06, Winner Wetten, 2010 E.C.R. I-8015, para. 61; Case C–399/11, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, 2013 E.C.R. I–00000, para. 59.Google Scholar
42 Decision no. 3 of 5 July 2004 in Case no. 3 of 2004, SG 61 of 13 July 2004.Google Scholar
43 Id. (Author's translation).Google Scholar
44 See, e.g., the Portuguese Constitutional Court, supra note 14.Google Scholar
45 According to the BCC, Art. 149(1) does not exhaustively list the BCC's powers as other provisions contain a reference to the BCC and bestow upon it certain powers. See Decision no. 4 of 2011 in Case no. 4 of 2011, SG 36 of 10 May 2011. However, Art. 149(1) does provide a summary of its powers.Google Scholar
46 For an overview of the diverging views, see Stoichev, Krassen, The issue of legal gaps in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria, Report for the Conference of European Constitutional Courts, 1–3, http://www.confeuconstco.org/reports/rep-xiv/report_Bulgaria_en.pdf.Google Scholar
47 Determination no. 1 of 26 January 2006 in Case no. 10 of 2005.Google Scholar
48 Determination no. 4 of 14 August 2007 in Case no. 9 of 2007; Determination of 17 May 2004 in Case no. 3 of 2004.Google Scholar
49 Stoichev, supra note 46, at 8.Google Scholar
50 Id. Google Scholar
51 Decision no. 22 of 1995 in Case no. 25 of 1995, SG 105 of 1 December 1995.Google Scholar
52 Decision no. 9 of 1999 in Case no. 8 of 1999, SG 57 of 25 June 1999.Google Scholar
53 Such are logical, teleological, textual, historical, consistent interpretation, use of preparatory works etc.Google Scholar
54 Bulgarian Constitution, Arts. 147(2) and 152.Google Scholar
55 Claes, Monica, Constitutionalizing Europe at its Source: ‘The ‘European Clauses’ in the National Constitutions: Evolution and Typology, 24 Y.B. Eur. L. 81, 92 (2005).Google Scholar
56 VII Grand National Assembly, Stenographical Records 1990–1991, 165th Session, Sofia, 25 June 1991, 53.Google Scholar
57 Id. (Author's translation).Google Scholar
58 Decision no. 4 of 2011 in Case no. 4 of 2011, SG 36 of 10 May 2011.Google Scholar
59 Determination no. 3 of 17 July 2014 in Case no. 11 of 2014, SG 61 of 25 June 2014.Google Scholar
60 Decision no. 1 of 2008 in Case no. 10 of 2007, SG 27 of 11 March 2008.Google Scholar
61 Емилия Друмева, Преюридициално запитване и от българския Конституционен съд, in в Класически и съвременни тенденции в конституционния контрол: Сборник статии от международна конференция, посветена на 20-годишнината на Конституционния съд на Република България 172 (2012) (Translated by the Author, Emilia Drumeva, Preliminary ruling from the Bulgarian Constitutional Court as well?, in Classical and Modern Trends in Constitutional Review: Compendium of articles from the international conference dedicated to the 20™ anniversary of the Bulgarian Constitutional Court).Google Scholar
62 Request for initiating proceedings from a group of national representatives of the 41st National Assembly, 7 February 2011, available in Bulgarian at http://constcourt.bg/contentframe/contentid/554. The request was supported by the Institute for Modern Politics but was argued against by the Council of Ministers, the Supreme Bar Council and the “Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights” Foundation.Google Scholar
63 Treaty on European Union, 9 May 2008, OJ EU C115/13, 2008.Google Scholar
64 Decision no. 3 of 2003 in Case no. 22 of 2002, SG 36 of 18 April 2003. Author's translation.Google Scholar
65 Decision no. 3 of 5 July 2004 in Case no. 3 of 2004, SG 61 of 13 July 2004.Google Scholar
66 Drumeva, supra note 61, at 170.Google Scholar
67 Kornezov, supra note 28, at 51–52.Google Scholar
68 See infra note 74.Google Scholar
69 Codes are different type of normative acts but the rules applicable to the laws also apply to codes. See Law on Normative Acts SG 27 of 3 April 1973 as last amended SG 46 of 12 June 2007, Art. 4(2).Google Scholar
70 Treaty between the […] (Member States of the European Union) and the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, 25 April 2005, O.J. L157/11, 2005 [hereinafter Accession Treaty].Google Scholar
71 Decision no. 9 of 1999 in Case no. 8 of 1999, SG 57 of 25 June 1999.Google Scholar
72 Translation by Evgeni Tanchev & Jenia Peteva, The Impact of EU Accession on the Legal Orders of Bulgaria, in The impact of EU accession on the legal orders of new EU member states and (pre-) candidate countries: hopes and fears 36–37 (Alfred E. Kellerman et al. eds., 2006).Google Scholar
73 Decision no. 9 of 1999 in Case no. 8 of 1999, SG 57 of 25 June 1999 (Author's translation).Google Scholar
74 See, e.g., Decision no. 1 of 2014 in Case no. 22 of 2013, SG 10 of 4 February 2014; Decision no. 3 of 5 July 2004 in Case no. 3 of 2004, SG 61 of 13 July 2004.Google Scholar
75 Case C–283/81, Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v. Ministry of Health, 1982 E.C.R. I–3415; Foglia, Case C–104/79.Google Scholar
76 Decision no. 1 of 2008 in Case no. 10 of 2007, SG 27 of 11 March 2008.Google Scholar
77 Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, 2006, O.J. L347/1.Google Scholar
78 Case C–235/85, Commission v. Netherlands, 1987 E.C.R. 1471; Case C–202/90, Ayuntamiento de Sevilla v. Recaudadores de Tributos de las Zonas primera y segunda, 1991 E.C.R. I–4247.Google Scholar
79 Decision no. 1 of 2008 in Case no. 10 of 2007, SG 27 of 11 March 2008 (Author's translation).Google Scholar
80 Александър Корнезов, Практиката на конститутционния съд в светлината на общностното право (2007–2008), 2 Общество и право 11 (2009) [Translated by the Author: Alexander Kornezov, The practice of the Constitutional Court in light of the Community law (2007–2008)].Google Scholar
81 Drumeva, supra note 61, at 173.Google Scholar
82 Concurring Opinion of Judge Rumen Yankov in Case no. 10 of 2007, SG 27 of 11 March 2008. Author's translation.Google Scholar
83 Decision no. 2 of 2011 in Case no. 2 of 2011, SG 32 of 19 April 2011.Google Scholar
84 Bulgarian Constitution at Art. 35(1).Google Scholar
85 Decision no. 2 of 2011 in Case no. 2 of 2011, SG 32 of 19 April 2011 (Author's translation).Google Scholar
86 Interpretative Decision no. 2 of 22 March 2011.Google Scholar
87 Decision no. 4 of 2011 in Case no. 4 of 2011, SG 36 of 10 May 2011.Google Scholar
88 European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters: Guidelines and Explanatory Report (CDL-AD (2002) 23) 15.Google Scholar
89 Case C–145/04, Spain v. UK, 2006 E.C.R. I-7917, para. 79.Google Scholar
90 See, supra note 58 and accompanying text.Google Scholar
91 Decision no. 1 of 2014 in Case no. 22 of 2013, SG 10 of 4 February 2014.Google Scholar
92 Accession Treaty, Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, Part Five, Annex VI, 3 Free Movement of Capital at 108.Google Scholar
93 Decision of the National Assembly for imposition of a moratorium on the acquisition of the right of property over land on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria by foreigners and foreign legal persons until 1 January 2020, SG 93 of 25 October 2013.Google Scholar
94 Determination of 14 November 2013 in Case no. 22 of 2013.Google Scholar
95 Determination of 20 May 2014 in Case no. 5 of 2014.Google Scholar
96 Determination of 12 June 2014 in Case no. 8 of 2014.Google Scholar
97 Joined Cases C–293/12 and C–594/12, Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others, 2014 E.C.R. I–00000.Google Scholar
98 Decision no. 11 of 2014 in Case no. 2 of 2013, SG 61 of 25 July 2014.Google Scholar
99 Decision no. 13 of 2014 in Case no. 1 of 2014, SG 65 of 6 August 2014.Google Scholar
100 European Parliament and Council (EC) Directive 2009/72 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, 2009, O.J. L211/55.Google Scholar
101 Decision no. 1 of 2005 in Case no. 8 of 2004, SG 13 of 8 February 2005.Google Scholar
102 Decision no. 9 of 1999 in Case no. 8 of 1999, SG 57 of 25 June 1999.Google Scholar
103 Decision no. 14 of 2014 in Case no. 12 of 2014, SG 95 of 18 November 2014.Google Scholar
104 Decision no. 12 of 2010 in Case no. 15 of 2010, SG 91 of 19 November 2010.Google Scholar
105 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2007, OJ EU C303/01.Google Scholar
106 European Parliament and Council Directive (EC) 2003/88 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, 2003, OJ L299/9.Google Scholar
107 Drumeva, supra note 61, at 175.Google Scholar
108 Decision no. 3 of 2012 in Case no. 12 of 2011, SG 26 of 30 March 2012.Google Scholar
109 Decision no. 7 of 2012 in Case no. 2 of 2012, SG 49 of 29 June 2012.Google Scholar
110 See, e.g., Case C–617/10, Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson, 2013 E.C.R. I-0000, para. 19.Google Scholar
111 Decision no. 11 of 2014 in Case no. 2 of 2013, SG 61 of 25 July 2014.Google Scholar
You have
Access