CELEX: 62010CN0622
Language: en
Date: 2010-12-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-622/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 December 2010 — Rémi Paquot v État Belge — SPF Finances

12.3.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 80/12
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 December 2010 — Rémi Paquot v État Belge — SPF Finances
   (Case C-622/10)
   2011/C 80/24
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Tribunal de première instance, Namur
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Rémi Paquot
   
      Defendant: État Belge — SPF Finances
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Do Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992 and in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously laid down in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other, preclude national legislation — in the present case, Article 9(2) of the Belgian Law of 6 January 1989 on the Cour d’arbitrage (now called the Cour constitutionnelle) — under which the national courts are required to follow the case-law flowing from judgments delivered by a court which occupies a higher rank in the national court system (in the present case, the Cour constitutionnelle, referred to above) in actions for annulment of provisions of domestic law brought before them, where those actions are based on an alleged infringement of provisions of European Union law, which is directly applicable in the domestic legal order and takes precedence over domestic law?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Do Article 6 of Title I, ‘Common Provisions’, of the Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992 and in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously laid down in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other hand, preclude national legislation — in the present case, Article 26(4) of the Belgian Law of 6 January 1989 on the Cour d’arbitrage (now called the Cour constitutionnelle), as amended by the Law of 12 July 2009, whether read separately or in conjunction with Article 9(2) of that Special Law of 6 January 1989 — under which the national courts are required to refer to a court which occupies a higher rank in the national court system (in the present case, the Cour constitutionnelle, referred to above), for a preliminary ruling, any question concerning the interpretation of provisions of European Union law, which is directly applicable in the domestic legal order and takes precedence over domestic law, where those provisions are also laid down in the national Constitution and where the national courts suppose those provisions to have been infringed in the circumstances of the disputes brought before them, with the result that those courts have been divested of jurisdiction to apply European Union law immediately, at the very least in cases where the higher court has already ruled on an identical issue?