CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

VÁCLAV STEHLÍK CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ including a reference to specific sections of some decisions. At the end the SAC concluded that there was no need to raise questions. 32 However, it should be emphasised that such references to decisions of other courts in the context of acte clair doctrine are infrequent. 2.5 Acte éclairé in case-law of the SAC The SAC explicitly approved the acte éclairé doctrine for example in a decision 33 concerning an environmental dispute. In particular, this concerned the protection of natural habitats under an EU Directive. 34 It referred to several decisions of the CJEU and, quite uniquely, also to the opinion of the Advocate General interpreting provisions of the Directive. The SAC concluded that it may come out from this case-law and found the issue as acte éclairé without a need to apply for a preliminary ruling. A similar scenario can also be found in other decisions. A good example can be a judgment 35 relating to a tax dispute and interpretation of the respective EU Directive. 36 With a referral to legal doctrine, the SAC stated that if “ the established case-law of the ECJ [European Court of Justice] dealing with an identical question is set up, the national court is obliged to respect it .” 37 It then referred to the CILFIT case, stating that “conclusions made by the Court of Justice … in materially identical cases have to be used as an interpretation guide and cannot be understood as conclusions relating only and exclusively to the case in which the preliminary ruling question was raised” 38 In summary it may be concluded that the SAC accepted the acte éclairé doctrine and has applied it in a number of other decisions 39 without substantial difficulties. 3.1 Acceptance of CILFIT criteria Primarily, it is possible to briefly analyse the approach of the Supreme Court to the application of CILFIT criteria to disputes that were initiated before the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. The position of the CJEU was formulated in the Ynos case according to which “ in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, the facts of which occurred prior to the accession of a State to the European Union, the Court [CJEU] 32 On the same date, decisions with an identical structure of arguments were adopted: this decision related Judgements of 30 July 2008, 1 Afs 30/2008-96, 1 Afs 28/2008-98; ref. 1Afs 29/2008-95. 33 Judgement of 20 May 2010, 8 Ao 2/2010-644. 34 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7-50. 35 Judgement of 15 July 2010, 9 Afs 4/2010-140. 36 Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13. 6. 1977, p. 1-40. 37 Here the SC refers to BOBEK, M. a kol. Předběžná otázka v komunitárním právu , Praha: Linde, 2005, p. 133 and on. References to this source are also found in the subsequent case-law, such as Judgement of 9 November 2016, 9 As 218/2016-63 or Judgement of 18 November 2015, 4 As 154/2015-34. 38 Also see Judgment of 15 July 2010, 9 Afs 5/2010-140. 39 For instance, Judgment of 30 July 2010, 8 Afs 14/2010-195; Judgement of 23 March 2011, 7 As 6/2011-67; Judgement of 15 June 2012, 8 Afs 21/2011-234; Judgement of 21 August 2012, 8 As 67/2012-54; Judgement of 29 April 2013, 5 Afs 62/2012-36; Judgement of 30 August 2013, 5 Afs 1/2013-48. 3. Supreme Court

582