¹ Rivero, Jean, Le Huron au Palais-Royal, ou réflexions naïves sur le recours pour excès de pouvoir, 1 Recueil Dalloz de Doctrine, de Jurisprudence, et de Legislation. Chronique 37 (1962).Google Scholar

² Simon, Denys, Un Huron à Schengen, 4 Europe 1 (2012). In the same way, see Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen, A Huron at the Kirchberg Plateau or a few naïve thoughts on constitutional identity in the ECJ case law, in National Constitutional Identity and European Integration, 275 (Alejandro Sáiz Arnaiz & Carina Alcoberro Llivina eds., 2013).Google Scholar

³ Rivero, Jean (1910-2001) was one of the most prominent French Professors of administrative and constitutional law. In his chronicle, mentioned above and widely known among French legal scholars, he brilliantly stages a fictional dialogue between himself and a Huron for the sake of discussing the French recourse for misuse of power. The falsely naive remarks attributed to the Huron indeed provides a forum for calling into question, or at least raising the issue of, the real effectiveness of this recourse. This method has clearly inspired this present article.Google Scholar

⁴ For convenience, we will refer throughout to Article 267 TFEU, even for preliminary references sent to the CJEU prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.Google Scholar

⁵ Cour d'arbitrage, 1997, Fédération belge des chambres syndicales de médecins ASBL v. Gouvernement flamand, Gouvernement de la Communauté française, Conseil des ministres, Case 6/97.Google Scholar

⁶ Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen, 1997, Case 1202.Google Scholar

⁷ Verfassungsgerichtshof, 1999, Cases B 2251/97 B 2594/97.Google Scholar

⁸ Konstitucinis Teismas, 2007, Case 47/04.Google Scholar

⁹ Corte Costituzionale, 2008, Case 102/2008 (Ord. 103/2008).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Tribunal Constitucional, 2011, Case 86/2011.Google Scholar

¹¹ Conseil Constitutionnel, 2013, Jérémy Forrest, Case 2013-314P QPC.Google Scholar

¹² Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2014, Case 2 BvR 2728/13.Google Scholar

¹³ Ustavno Sodisce, 2014, Case U-I-295/13-132. In view of the current lack of English version or translation, this case will not be considered in more depth in this article. Just a reference of this ruling is given here.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Trybunał Konstytucyjny, 2015, Case K 61/13. In view of the current lack of English version or translation, this case will not be considered in more depth in this article. Just a reference of this ruling is given here.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Only the first preliminary reference made by the relevant Constitutional Court to the ECJ was quoted in the previous footnotes.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The Cour d'arbitrage has been known as the Cour constitutionnelle belge (hereafter, Belgian Constitutional Court) since the constitutional revision of 7 May 2007.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The inventory of the decisions to submit a reference for a preliminary ruling of the Constitutional Courts was closed on 20 January 2015.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cour d'arbitrage, 1997, Fédération belge des chambres syndicales de médecins ASBL v. Gouvernement flamand, Gouvernement de la Communauté française, Conseil des ministres, Case 6/97, para. B.10; Cour d'arbitrage, 2003, Hugo Clerens, b.v.b.a. Valkeniersgilde, v. Gouvernement wallon, Conseil des ministres, Case 139/2003, para. B.17.Google Scholar

¹⁹ It should be stressed however that, for some Austrian authors, the Austrian Constitutional Court was the first Constitutional Court in Europe to ask the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. See, e.g., Peter Fischer & Alina Lengauer, The adaptation of the Austrian legal system following EU membership, 37 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 763, 776 (2000); Schäffer, Heinz, Autriche, in Cours Supremes Nationales et Cours Supremes Europeennes: Concurrence ou Collaboration? In Memoriam Louis Favoreu, 95, 111 (Julia Iliopoulos-Strangas ed., 2007); Anna Gamper, Francesco Palermo, The Constitutional Court of Austria: Modern Profiles of an archetype of constitutional review, 3 J. Comp. L. 64, 79 (2008)). Although any criticisms of what Roland Drago, another prominent French Professor, once called “nationalisme ombrageux” (shady nationalism), should be left aside here (Roland Drago, Note de jurisprudence, 1 Revue de Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et a l'Etranger 214, 216 (1980)), it seems difficult to deny the quality of constitutional jurisdiction to the Belgian Cour d'arbitrage, even in 1997 (in this sense, see, e.g., Louis Favoreu, La Cour d'arbitrage vue de l'étranger. Le modèle belge de justice constitutionnelle, in Regards Croises sur la Cour d'Arbitrage 323, 324 (Robert Andersen et al. eds., 1995). The latter was therefore the first Constitutional Court to use ex Art. 177 EC Treaty.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cour d'arbitrage, 2005, Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad, Case 124/2005.Google Scholar

²¹ EC Directive 2002/584, 13 June 2002, O.J. 2002 L 190/1.Google Scholar

²² Cour d'arbitrage, 2005, Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad, Case 124/2005, paras. B.3.2 and B.11.Google Scholar

²³ Information concerning the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, 1 May 1999, O.J. 1999 L 114/56.Google Scholar

²⁴ Case C–283/81, CILFIT v. Ministry of Health, 1982 E.C.R. 3415, paras. 10–20. In this ruling, limits to the national courts’ of last instance duty to submit a reference are set by the CJEU. National courts of last instance are not obliged to make a reference for a preliminary ruling when they consider that “the question is not relevant,” when the “Court [of Justice] ha[s] already dealt with the point of law in question,” and when they “established that the correct application of Community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt.”Google Scholar

²⁵ Cour constitutionnelle belge, 2009, Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Bosselier v. Conseil des ministres, Case 103/2009, para. B.5.2.Google Scholar

²⁶ Case C–314/85, Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost, 1987 E.C.R. 4199, para. 20. In the present case, the Hamburg's Finanzgericht asked the CJEU, inter alia, whether a national court is able to review the validity of a decision adopted by the Commission. According to the CJEU, national courts may consider the validity of a Community act, but—and that is the crucial point—they have no jurisdiction to declare that measures taken by Community institutions are invalid. The CJEU has sole jurisdiction to declare such measures invalid.Google Scholar

²⁷ “L'article 267 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne rend la Cour de justice compétente pour statuer, à titre préjudiciel, aussi bien sur l'interprétation des actes des institutions de l'Union que sur la validité de ces actes. En vertu de son troisième alinéa, une juridiction nationale est tenue de saisir la Cour de justice si ses decisions—comme celles de la Cour constitutionnelle—ne sont pas susceptibles d'un recours juridictionnel de droit interne. En cas de doute quant à l'interprétation ou la validité d'une disposition du droit de l'Union qui présente une importance pour la solution d'un litige pendant devant cette juridiction, celle-ci doit interroger la Cour de justice à titre préjudiciel, y compris d'office, sans qu'aucune partie ne l'ait demandé.” (Author's translation.)Google Scholar

²⁸ Verfassungsgerichtshof, 1999, Cases B 2251/97 B 2594/97, para. IV.2; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 2000, Cases KR 1-6/00 KR 8/00, para. III; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 2001, Case W I–14/99, para. III.Google Scholar

²⁹ Verfassungsgerichtshof, 2012, Case G 47/12, paras. 26–30.Google Scholar

³⁰ Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen, 1997, Case 1202, para. II.B.Google Scholar

³¹ Tribunal Constitucional, 2011, Case 86/2011, para. Il.4.d).Google Scholar

³² Staatsgerichtshof des Landes Hessen, 1997, Case 1202, para. III.B.Google Scholar

³³ Tribunal Constitucional, 2011, Case 86/2011, para. Il.4.d).Google Scholar

³⁴ Id. at para. Il.4.d).Google Scholar

³⁵ Corte Costituzionale, 2008, Case (Ordinanza) 103/2008.Google Scholar

³⁶ Corte Costituzionale, 2008, Case (Sentenza) 102/2008, para. 8.2.8.3.Google Scholar

³⁷ Corte Costituzionale, 2013, Case (Ordinanza) 207/2013.Google Scholar

³⁸ Tribunal Constitucional, 2011, Case 86/2011, para. Il.4.d).Google Scholar

³⁹ Corte Costituzionale, 2008, Case 102/2008, para. 8.2.8.3; Corte Costituzionale, 2013, Case 207/2013.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Tribunal Constitucional, 2011, Case 86/2011, para. Il.4.e).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Case C–61/65, Vaassen-Goebbels v. Beambtenfonds Mijnbedrijf, 1965 E.C.R. 377.Google Scholar

⁴² Cour d'arbitrage, 2005, Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad, Case 124/2005; Cour constitutionnelle belge, 2009, Exécution d'un mandat d'arrět européen émis à l'encontre de I.B., Case 128/2009.Google Scholar

⁴³ Tribunal Constitucional, 2011, Case 86/2011, para. Il.4.a).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Protocol (no. 36) on transitional provisions, 9 May 2008, O.J. 2008 C 115/322.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Tribunal Constitucional, 2011, Case 86/2011, para. Il.4.a).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Conseil Constitutionnel, 2013, Jérémy Forrest, Case 2013-314P QPC, para. 7.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Documentary record of the Constitutional Council on Case 2013-314P QPC 74–75, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/download/2013314PQPCdoc.pdf.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Anne Levade, Premier arrět sur renvoi préjudiciel du Conseil constitutionnel: ce que la Cour de justice dit… et ne dit pas, 2 Consts. 189, 191 (2013). In the same way, see Marie-Eve Morin, Extension du mandat d'arrět européen: trois juridictions pour une abrogation, 96 Revue Francaise de Droit Constitutionnel 992, 995 (2013).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Pursuant to Article 19(3) TEU, “The Court of Justice of the European Union shall, in accordance with the Treaties: […] (b) give preliminary rulings, at the request of courts or tribunals of the Member States, on the interpretation of Union law or the validity of acts adopted by the institutions.” This quote is rather original since, on the one hand, such reference to this Article is not seen in the other Constitutional Courts’ decisions to refer and, on the other hand, it has not only quite the same wording, but also the same scope and spirit as of Article 267 TFEU. The German Constitutional Court clearly stressed the jurisdiction of the CJEU on the matter. One could possibly wonder about the potential reasons of this duplication: was it in order to strengthen the impression of the Constitutional Court's wish to cooperate with the CJEU? Looking more closely, it is striking that there is not much talk of cooperation (in this sense, see Wendel, Mattias, Exceeding Judicial Competence in the Name of Democracy: The German Federal Constitutional Court's OMT Reference, 10 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 2, 263 (2014); see also the various contributions in the German Law Journal's Special Issue on the OMT decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court in 15 German L. J. 2, 107 (2014)).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2014, Case 2 BvR 2728/13, para. 27.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Konstitucinis Teismas, 2007, Case 47/04, para. III.7.Google Scholar

⁵² This remark also includes the German Constitutional Court's preliminary reference, in which the notion of the cooperation between courts that is inherent to the preliminary ruling procedure seems to disappear in favor of a certain type of legal “diktat.” Franz Christian Mayer, Rebel Without a Cause? A Critical Analysis of the German Constitutional Court's OMT Reference, 15 German L. J. 111, 119-20 (2014). In what follows however, the debate will mainly focus on the French Constitutional Council's preliminary reference. The aim in this part of the dialogue is to discuss the deliberate lack of reference to Article 267(3) TFEU and its questionable justification that the Constitutional Council would not be an ordinary judge of EU law.Google Scholar

⁵³ Simon, Denys, Le Conseil constitutionnel et le droit de l'Union européenne. Entretien accordé par Jean-Louis Debré 7 Europe 4, 5 (2013).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Remarks made by M. Guillaume at the conference organized on 4 November 2013 by the European College of Paris and the European Law Center of Paris II on the subject of “Le Conseil Constitutionnel et l'Europe: 55 ans pour apprendre à se connaître.”Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Documentary record of the Constitutional Council on Case 2013-314P QPC, 74, http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/download/2013314PQPCdoc.pdf (2013).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Conseil Constitutionnel, 1975, Loi relative à l'interruption volontaire de la grossesse, Case 74–54 DC.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See, notably, Barav, Ami, la Fonction Communautaire du Juge National (1983). More recently, see Dubos, Olivier, Les Juridictions, Juge Communautaire. Contribution a l'Etude des Transformations de la Fonction Juridictionnelle dans les Etats Membres de l'Union Europenne (2001).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Dubos, supra note 57, at 5.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Id. at 29. In the same way, see Eva Bruce-Rabillon, Question sur la question! Nouvelles déclinaisons du contrôle de la constitutionnalité des lois de transposition, 23 Politeia 89, 121 (2013).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Remarks made by M. Bossuyt at the conference organized on 18 October 2013 by the University of Paris II on the subject of “Les relations entre hautes juridictions: paisibles ou non?”.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Belgian Report for the XVIth Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts, 41, http://www.confcoconsteu.org/reports/rep-xvi/LB-Belgique-FR.pdf (2014).Google Scholar

⁶² Austrian Report for the Xllth Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts, 31–32, http://www.confcoconsteu.org/reports/rep-xii/Oostenrijk-FR.pdf (2002).Google Scholar

⁶³ Grabenwarter, Christoph, European fundamental human rights in the case law of the Austrian Constitutional Court, in L'Europe des Droits Fondamentaux. En Hommage a Albert Weitzel 59, 69 (Luc Weitzel ed., 2013).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Sanchez, Pedro Tenorio, Tribunal Constitucional y cuestión prejudicial ante el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, 4, http://www.larioja.org/upload/documents/681076_DLL_N_7520-2010.Tribunal_Constitucional.pdf (2010).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Burgorgue-Larsen, Laurence, Chronique de jurisprudence européenne comparée (2008), 4 RDP 1245, 1274 (2009).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Bruce-Rabillon, supra note 59, at 121.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Case C–168/13 PPU, F., (May 30, 2013), http://curia.europa.eu/.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Bonnet, Baptiste, Le paradoxe apparent d'une question prioritaire de constitutionnalité instrument de l'avènement des rapports de systèmes, 5 RDP 1229, 1235, 1251, 1253 (2013).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Constitutional Council, 2006, Loi relative au droit d'auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l'information, Case 2006-540 DC, para 19.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Dubout, Edouard, “Les règles ou principes inhérents à l'identité constitutionnelle de la France”: une supra-constitutionnalité?, 83 RFDC 451, 453 (2010).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Philippe Blacher, Guillaume Protière, Le Conseil constitutionnel, gardien de la Constitution face aux directives communautaires, 69 RFDC 123, 134 (2007). According to them, “it is […] difficult to determine the scope of this notion” (“il apparaît […] difficile de déterminer le champ de cette notion”). (Author's translation.)Google Scholar

⁷² Mazeaud, Pierre, Voeux du président du Conseil constitutionnel, available at http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/nouveaux-cahiers-du-conseil/cahier-n-18/voeux-du-president-du-conseil-constitutionnel-m-pierre-mazeaud-au-president-de-la-republique.51930.html (2005).Google Scholar

⁷³ Dubout, supra note 70, at 456.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ François-Xavier Millet, L'Union Europeene et l'Identite Constitutionnelle des Etats Membres 13 (2013).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Id. at 14 (“stricto sensu, elle [l'identité constitutionnelle] peut ětre interprétée comme étant seulement constituée d'un noyau dur de principes et valeurs constitutionnels fondamentaux auxquels un Etat marquerait un attachement particulier, de nature identitaire.”) (Author's translation).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Art. 4(2) TEU.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Art. 19(1) TEU.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Bruce-Rabillon, supra note 59, at 121. According to her, only judges who exercise a conventionality review are considered ordinary judges of EU law. But, “attached to a strict approach of its specialty,” which separates him from this kind of review, the French constitutional judge is not one of them so far. In this sense, see also Pascal Puig, Vers un nouveau “dialogue des juges” constitutionnel et européen, 3 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil 564, 570 (2013).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Chaltiel, Florence, Constitution et droit européen: le Conseil constitutionnel, juge européen? A propos d'un nouveau type de décision: les décisions en “P”, 568 Revue de l'Union Europeenne 261, 261 (2013). According to her, “due to the French participation in the EU set out in Title XV of the Constitution and its gradual constitutionalisation, the French constitutional judge is required to check the compatibility of national laws with European law. […] He has therefore built progressively a judicial policy of conventionnalité constitutionnelle or constitutionnalité conventionnelle. By using the preliminary ruling mechanism, he continues to work in that direction.”Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Aguila, Yann, Bernard Stirn, Droit Public Francais et Europeen 304-05 (2014); Grewe, Constance, Contrôle de constitutionnalité et contrôle de conventionalité: à la recherche d'une frontière introuvable, 100 RFDC 961, 968-69 (2014).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Jérôme Roux, Premier renvoi préjudiciel du Conseil constitutionnel à la Cour de justice et conjonction de dialogues des juges autour du mandat d'arrět européen, 3 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Europeen 531, 540 (2013). According to him, the Constitutional Council is admittedly a court under the auspices of Article 267 TFEU, but in view of its tightened jurisdiction on EU matters, the chances of a new preliminary ruling are very low.Google Scholar

⁸² Since the constitutional amendment of 23 July 2008, alongside the traditional a priori constitutionality review of laws, an a posteriori constitutionality review of laws has been introduced into the French Constitution. Pursuant to the new Art. 61–1, “if, during proceedings in progress before a court of law, it is claimed that a legislative provision infringes the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the matter may be referred by the Council of State or by the Court of Cassation to the Constitutional Council which shall rule within a determined period”. An Organic Law (Organic Law n° 2009-1523 of 10 December 2009 on the application of Article 61-1 of the Constitution) also came to determine the conditions for the application of this Article.Google Scholar

⁸³ Conseil Constitutionnel, 2013, Jérémy Forrest, Case 314-2013P QPC, para. 6 (“the constituent legislator intended to remove constitutional barriers precluding the enactment of the legislative provisions that necessarily follow from the acts adopted by the institutions of the European Union relating to the European arrest warrant.”) (official translation).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Rousseau, Dominique, L'intégration du Conseil constitutionnel au système juridictionnel européen, 127 La Gazette du Palais 13, 14 (2013) (“en choisissant d'interpréter la décision-cadre comme imprécise, le Conseil choisit de se mettre en situation de “devoir” saisir la Cour de Luxembourg.”) (Author's translation).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Id. at 16. In the same way, see Rossetto, Jean, Le mandat d'arrět européen à l'épreuve du renvoi préjudiciel, 23 La Semaine Juridique Administrations et Collectivites Territoriales (JCP A) 29, 32 (2013).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Art. 23–10 of the Organic Law n° 2009-1523 of 10 December 2009 on the application of Art. 61-1 of the Constitution (“le Conseil constitutionnel statue dans un délai de trois mois à compter de sa saisine.”) (Author's translation).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Simon, Denys, Conventionnalité et constitutionnalité, 137 Pouvoirs 19, 29 (2011).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Case C–11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 1970 E.C.R. 1125.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Case C–106/77, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal, 1978 E.C.R. 629.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Joined Cases C–188/10 and C–189/10, Melki and Abdeli, 2010 E.C.R. I–5667.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Case C–11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 1970 E.C.R. 1125, para. 3; Case C–106/77, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal, 1978 E.C.R. 629, para. 21.Google Scholar

⁹² Joined Cases C–188/10 and C–189/10, Melki and Abdeli, 2010 E.C.R. I–5667, para 56.Google Scholar

⁹³ Bruce-Rabillon, supra note 59, at 119.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Id. at 119.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Agnès Roblot-Troizier, Chronique de droits fondamentaux et libertés publiques. Renvoi préjudiciel sur renvoi prioritaire: le droit au recours théâtre d'une collaboration inédite entre juges constitutionnel et européen, 41 Les Nouveaux Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, 245, 250 (2013).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Coutron, Laurent & Gahdoun, Pierre-Yves, Premier renvoi préjudiciel du Conseil constitutionnel à la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne: une innovation aux implications incertaines (à propos de la décision “mandat d'arrět européen” du Conseil constitutionnel du 4 avril 2013), 5 RDP 1207, 1228 (2013).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Roux, supra note 81, at 534.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Coutron, Gahdoun, supra note 96, at 1223. In the same way, see Simon, Denys, Il y a toujours une première fois. A propos de la décision 2013-314 QPC du Conseil constitutionnel du 4 avril 2013, 5 Eur. 6, 10 (2013).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Simon, supra note 53, at 5.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Case C–16/65, Schwarze v. Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle Getreide, 1965 E.C.R. 877.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Coutron & Gahdoun, supra note 96, at 1225.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Pursuant to the rules governing Priority Preliminary rulings on the issue of constitutionality, the Court of Cassation stays proceedings pending delivery of the Constitutional Council's judgment. Assuming that there is no more constitutional cloud as may be the case in the scenario presented, the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Council therefore stops: it is then up to the Court of Cassation to pass judgment on the substance of the case.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Carabot, Myriam Benlolo, Mandat d'arrět européen (Décision-cadre n° 2002/584/JAI du Conseil): Première question préjudicielle du Conseil constitutionnel à la CJUE, in Lettre Actualités Droits-Libertés du CREDOF, 2 May 2013, available at http://revdh.org/2013/05/02/mandat-darret-europeen-premiere-question-prejudicielle-conseil-constitutionnel/.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Coutron & Gahdoun, supra note 96, at 1217. In the same way, see also Cyril Nourissat, Première question préjudicielle du Conseil constitutionnel à la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne: Live and let die…, 6 Procs. 1, 2 (2013).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Haguenau-Moizard, Catherine, Le contrôle de constitutionnalité du droit dérivé de l'Union européenne: la fin d'une exception française?, available at www.law.uj.edu.pl/spf/referaty/Catherine%20Haguenau-Moizard.doc (2010).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Cour d'arbitrage, 2005, Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad, Case 124/2005; Cour d'arbitrage, 2005, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, Ordre des barreaux flamands, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v. Conseil des ministres, Case 126/2005; Cour constitutionnelle belge, 2009, Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL, Yann van Vugt, Charles Bosselier v. Conseil des ministres, Case 103/2009; Cour constitutionnelle belge, Exécution d'un mandat d'arrět européen émis à l'encontre de I.B., Case 128/2009; Cour constitutionnelle belge, 2012, Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v. Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte, Case 116/2012; Cour constitutionnelle, 2014, Case 165/2014. In these three last rulings, questions on interpretation and on validity were mixed.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Tribunal Constitucional, 2011, Case 86/2011.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Verfassungsgerichtshof, 2012, Case G 47/12.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2014, Case 2 BvR 2728/13.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Coutron & Gahdoun, supra note 96, at 1222–23.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Corte Costituzionale, 2008, Case 102/2008, para. 8.2.8.3. In the same way, see Roudier, Karine, L'évolution des rapports entre la Cour constitutionnelle italienne et le droit communautaire: le dialogue direct entre les juges finalement instauré, 21 Civitas Europa 145, 156-59 (2008).Google Scholar