CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

VÁCLAV STEHLÍK CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ not just specific equipment, and the waste water means the water discharged from the whole premises. 14 Besides environment, the SAC referred to the acte clair doctrine in several decisions relating to asylum. There it clearly confirmed the CILFIT criteria in a case relating to the provisions of the Schengen Treaty concerning the validity of a short-term visa, 15 quoting the full wording of CILFIT criteria there. 16 The SAC then argued teleologically, also referring to several language versions of the EU regulation; in particular, to the English, French and German. It concluded that the contested question is acte clair and there is no need to initiate the proceedings pursuant to the former Article 68 TEC. 17 In other cases, it only referred to a single language version, namely English, and supported the interpretation by the CJEU case-law; 18 or to German and Slovak versions. 19 Recently, the SAC used comparison of language versions, e.g. in a case relating to interpretation of the EU Machinery Directive. 20 In this decision, it referred to English, French, German, Dutch and Polish versions which led to the same interpretation; however, the interpretation of the Slovak version was ambiguous. Therefore, the court did not choose the interpretation corresponding to one version or another with a reference to inadmissibility of prioritization of some versions over other; instead it applied a teleological and systematic interpretation which resulted in the final decision. In several cases the SAC just referred to conclusions made in its previous decisions. 21 The final summary of the analysis of SAC’s case-law shows that in some decisions it refers to various language versions, usually the main languages, such as English, French and German, or languages close to Czech, such as Polish or Slovak. The employment of other languages is occasional. The SAC rarely referred to most or even to all language versions. However, it does not always work with language versions of the contested EU law provision; it seems that recently reference to other language versions has been less frequent. 22 2.3 Autonomous terminology and EU law concepts, systematic interpretation Other conditions formulated in the CILFIT case include a requirement to respect autonomous terminology and concepts of EU law. In such an assessment, national courts 14 However, the SAC did not explicitly offer application of other conditions of the CILFIT case. 15 Judgement of 29 April 2009, 2 Azs 93/2008-194. 16 Referring to publication BOBEK, M. et al. Předběžná otázka v komunitárním právu , Praha: Linde, 2005. 17 Treaty Establishing the European Community; preliminary ruling procedure relating to visa, asylum and immigration policy which had partly a different regime than the preliminary ruling procedure pursuant to former Article 234 of TEC, now art. 267 TFEU. 21 This is the case of, for instance, Decision 1 As 13/2007-63, where the SAC in relation to the application of the Aarhus Convention refers to its conclusion in the decision in case 1 As 39/2006-55, similarly, see the decision of 13 October 2010, 6 Ao 5/2010-436 Ao 5/2010-43. Non-referral for a preliminary ruling in case 1 As 39/2006-5 was also reviewed by the Constitutional Court, decision of the Constitutional Court of 15 February 2010, I. ÚS 2553/07. 22 For the absence of comparison of language versions, see the latest ones, for instance, Judgment of 9 March 2017, 7 As 305/2016-47; Resolution of 28 February 2017, 5 Azs 20/2016-38, Resolution of 2 December 2016, 9 As 176/2016-50, Judgment of 7 June 2016, 7 As 71/2016-29; Judgement of 18 November 2015, 4 As 154/2015-34. 18 Judgement of 26 March 2015, 5 As 125/2014-27. 19 Judgement of 11 June 2015, 9 As 172/2014-89. 20 Judgement of 9 March 2017, 1 As 79/2016-43.

580