Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov.
Date: 2016-07-05
16


In accordance with settled case-law, the procedure provided for by Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts and tribunals, by means of which the former provides the latter with interpretation of such EU law as is necessary for them to give judgment in cases upon which they are called to adjudicate (see orders of 8 September 2011, Abdallah, C‑144/11, not published, EU:C:2011:565, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited; of 19 March 2015, Andre, C‑23/15, not published, EU:C:2015:194, paragraph 4 and the case-law cited, and the judgment of 6 October 2015, Capoda Import-Export, C‑354/14, EU:C:2015:658, paragraph 23).
17


In accordance with equally settled case-law, Article 267 TFEU gives national courts the widest discretion in referring matters to the Court if they consider that a case pending before them raises questions involving the interpretation of provisions of EU law, or consideration of their validity, which are necessary for the resolution of the case before them. National courts are, moreover, free to exercise that discretion at whatever stage of the proceedings they consider appropriate (see judgments of 5 October 2010, Elchinov, C‑173/09, EU:C:2010:581, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited, and of 11 September 2014, A, C‑112/13, EU:C:2014:2195, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). The choice of the most appropriate time to refer a question for a preliminary ruling lies within their exclusive jurisdiction (see judgments of 15 March 2012, Sibilio, C‑157/11, not published, EU:C:2012:148, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited, and of 7 April 2016, Degano Trasporti, C‑546/14, EU:C:2016:206, paragraph 16).
18


The need to provide an interpretation of EU law which will be of use to the national court means that the national court must define the factual and legal context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the assumptions of fact on which those questions are based (see orders of 8 September 2011, Abdallah, C‑144/11, not published, EU:C:2011:565, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited; of 19 March 2015, Andre, C‑23/15, not published, EU:C:2015:194, paragraph 5 and the case-law cited, and the judgment of 10 March 2016, Safe Interenvíos, C‑235/14, EU:C:2016:154, paragraph 114).
19


The requirements concerning the content of a request for a preliminary ruling, are expressly set out in Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure, of which the national court should, in the context of the cooperation instituted by Article 267 TFEU, be aware and which it is bound to observe scrupulously (see order of 3 July 2014, Talasca, C‑19/14, EU:C:2014:2049, paragraph 21).
20


There is moreover no dispute that the information provided in orders for reference serves not only to enable the Court to provide useful answers but also to give the governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and that it is the Court’s duty to ensure that that opportunity is safeguarded, given that, under that article, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties (see order of 8 September 2011, Abdallah, C‑144/11, not published, EU:C:2011:565, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited, and the judgment of 10 March 2016, Safe Interenvíos, C‑235/14, EU:C:2016:154, paragraph 116).
21


Last, if the relevant factual and legal context is not stated, that may constitute a ground for the request for a preliminary ruling to be declared to be manifestly inadmissible (see, to that effect, orders of 8 September 2011, Abdallah, C‑144/11, not published, EU:C:2011:565, paragraph 12; 4 July 2012, Abdel, C‑75/12, not published, EU:C:2012:412, paragraphs 6 and 7; 19 March 2014, Grimal, C‑550/13, not published, EU:C:2014:177, paragraph 19, and of 19 March 2015, Andre, C‑23/15, not published, EU:C:2015:194, paragraphs 8 and 9).
25


It follows that one effect of a national rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings is likely to be that a national court may choose to refrain from referring questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court, in order to avoid, on the one hand, being disqualified and exposed to disciplinary penalties or, on the other, lodging requests for preliminary rulings that are inadmissible. Consequently, such a rule is detrimental to the prerogatives granted to national courts and tribunals by Article 267 TFEU and, consequently, to the effectiveness of the cooperation between the Court and the national court and tribunals established by the preliminary ruling mechanism.
28


In that regard, it must be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, Article 267 TFEU requires the referring court to give full effect to the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 April 2016, PFE, C‑689/13, EU:C:2016:199, paragraphs 38 to 40 and the case-law cited).
33


That said, it must be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, a judgment in which the Court gives a preliminary ruling is binding on the national court, as regards the interpretation or the validity of the acts of the EU institutions in question, for the purposes of the decision to be given in the main proceedings (see judgments of 20 October 2011, Interedil, C‑396/09, EU:C:2011:671, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited, and of 5 April 2016, PFE, C‑689/13, EU:C:2016:199, paragraph 38).
34


In addition, it must be stated that, in accordance with settled case-law, a national court which is called upon, within the exercise of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of EU law, is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national law, and it is not necessary for that court to request or to await the prior setting aside of that provision of national law by legislative or other constitutional means (see judgments of 20 October 2011, Interedil, C‑396/09, EU:C:2011:671, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited; of 4 June 2015, Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems, C‑5/14, EU:C:2015:354, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited, and of 5 April 2016, PFE, C‑689/13, EU:C:2016:199, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
35


Last, it must be added that the requirement to give full effect to EU law includes the obligation on a national court to alter established case-law, where necessary, if that is based on an interpretation of national law that is incompatible with EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 April 2016, DI, C‑441/14, EU:C:2016:278, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
36


It follows that, in this case, the referring court is obliged to ensure that Article 267 TFEU is given full effect, and if necessary to disapply, of its own motion, Article 29 of the NPK as interpreted by the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Appeal), where that interpretation is not compatible with EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 April 2016, DI, C‑441/14, EU:C:2016:278, paragraph 34).