The Constitutional Court takes its first decision on referring questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling
On 28 February, the Constitutional Court continued examination, with participation of participants in the case, Case No. 2016‑04‑03 “On Compliance of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 14 April 2015 No.187 “Amendment to the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation of 30 November 2004 No.1002 “Procedure for Implementing the Programming Document “Latvia’s Rural Development Plan for the Implementation of Rural Development Programme for 2004-2006””” with Article 105 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Constitutional Court established that serious doubts existed in the case, whether provisions of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (hereinafter – Regulation No. 1257/1999) prohibited the Member States from including in their regulatory enactments the institution of inheriting early retirement support.
The first part of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has the jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of the Treaties, as well as the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union. Whereas the third part of this Article provides that, where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court has the obligation to bring the matter before CJEU.
The Constitutional Court underscored that its rulings were not subject to appeal, therefore if the outcome in the case depended upon interpretation of legal acts of the European Union, the Constitutional Court had to verify, whether the particular matter had not been already explained by CJEU and whether the provisions of the relevant legal act were as clear as not to cause any reasonable doubt, and had to decide, whether a preliminary ruling by the CJEU was required.
In the case under review the Constitutional Court has identified the need to refer questions to CJEU for preliminary ruling concerning interpretation of provision of Regulation No. 1257/1999. The Constitutional Court drew attention to particular circumstances that caused doubts concerning interpretation of legal norms of the European Union and decided:
1.To refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union:
1.1. Whether, in view of the shared competence of the European Union and Member States in the field of agriculture, the provisions of Regulation No. 1257/1999 in interconnection with one of the aims of this Regulation – to involve farmers in the Measure of early retirement – is to be interpreted as meaning that in the framework of applying Measures of Regulation No. 1257/1999 a Member State is prohibited from adopting such legal regulation that would allow inheriting the early retirement support?
1.2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative, i.e., that the provisions of Regulation No. 1257/1999 prohibit inheriting the early retirement support, whether in the actual situation, where the legal provision of a Member State was approved by the European Commission in due procedure as being compliant with rules of Regulation No. 1257/1999 and farmers became involved in the Measure of early retirement, a person could acquire subjective right to inherit the support granted in the framework of this Measure?
1.3. If the answer to the second question is affirmative, i.e., that a person could acquire such subjective right, whether the conclusion made by the sitting of 19 October 2011 of the European Commission Rural Development Committee that early retirement support was not applicable to heirs of the transferor of a farm could be considered as being the grounds for early termination of the acquired subjective right referred to above?
2. To suspend legal proceedings in the case until a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union has entered into force.
The decision on the procedure for adopting a decision to refer a question the Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling is available on the home page of the Constitutional Court:
https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Decision-on-the-procedure-of-adopting-a-decision-to-refer-a-question-to-the-Court-of-Justice-of-the-European-Union-for-preliminary-ruling-1.pdf
The decision on referring questions to the Court of Justice for preliminary ruling in Case No. 2016-04-03 is available on the home page of the Constitutional Court:
https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Decision-on-referring-questions-to-the-Court-of-Justice-of-the-European-Union-for-preliminary-ruling-1.pdf
Linked case: 2016-04-03