CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

VÁCLAV STEHLÍK

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ

• Acte clair doctrine 35 The most complex are the conditions to comply with the acte clair doctrine. In this regard the CCC refers to CIFLIT and the requirement that the “ correct application of Community law may be so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to the manner in which the question raised is to be resolved ”. 36 The CCC reiterates the detailed CILFIT criteria, namely that the obvious interpretation of the EU law will be fulfilled under three conditions: 0 proper respect to characteristic features of the EU law and specific methods of its interpretation 37 0 comparison of various language versions of the EU law with respect to its autonomous terminology 38 0 the provision of the EU law has to be interpreted in its overall context. 39 According to the CCC it is not possible to fully meet these strict conditions as is illustrated both in the doctrine, 40 as well as in the opinions of Advocates General. 41 It concludes that the fulfilment of CILFIT criteria cannot be done formally but substantially as they themselves give a significant discretion to courts of last instance. 42 According to the CCC the extending freedom of courts of last instance and diminishing the CILFIT criteria was confirmed also in the recent case-law of the CJEU. 43 As the EU law itself gives an increasing discretion to national courts, this must even more apply for the CCC which decides in a different legal framework. 44 Based on the above-mentioned considerations, the CCC formulated its own criteria for the fulfilment of acte clair doctrine, namely: 0 the ordinary court itself had (evident) 45 doubts on the interpretation of the EU law and did not initiate the preliminary ruling procedure. This should be based on the indications in the substantiation of the decision or evident from the file of the case; 37 The CCC in quoting these conditions does not refer directly of CILFIT but to its previous case-law, namely Judgment of the Constitutional Court III. ÚS 3689/12 delivered on 6 December 2012. It may be noted that the CJEU in CILFIT in point 17 does not refer to specific methods of interpretation of EU law but to „ particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise “. This refers more to the special emphasis on some methods of interpretation rather than methods different to those known in EU law. 38 Cf. points 18-19 of CILFIT . 39 Cf. point 20 where the CJEU except to contextual interpretation refers also to the objectives of EU law as well as its state of evolution. 40 The CCC refers to LENAERTS, Koen et all. EU Procedural Law . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. 41 It refers to the opinion of AG Wahl in C-72/14 a C-197/14 Wahl v X and van Dijk , ECLI:EU:C:2015:319, point 62. 42 There the CCC refers to opinion of AG Tizzano in C-99/00 Lyckesgog , ECLI:EU:C:2002:108, point 58. 43 There the CCC refers to case C-72/14 a C-197/14 Wahl v X and van Dijk , ECLI:EU:C:2015:564 as well as it refers also to academic papers, namely to KORNEZOV, Alexander. The new format of the acte clair doctrine and its consequences. Common Market Law Review , no. 5, 2016 and LIMANTE, Agne. Recent Developments in the Acte Clair Case Law of the EU Court of Justice: Towards a more flexible approach. Journal of Common Market Studies , no. 6, 2016. 44 Meaning the Czech constitutional law framework; cf. CCC decision, para 27. 45 The CCC deliberately used the word „ evident “ in brackets; actually it is not then clear whether the doubts of court of last instance should necessarily be explicit or suffice them to be only implicit. This difference may be of importance for the legal practice. 35 See para 27 of the CCC judgment. 36 Cf. para 26 of the judgment and point 16 of CILFIT .

122