CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ APPLICATION OF CILFIT CRITERIA BY CZECH SUPREME COURTS does not have jurisdiction to answer the first and second question ”. 40 The case was reflected by the SC, for instance, in the decision 41 relating to dissolution of a joint-stock company and transfer of business assets to the main shareholder. This area is covered by the Third Directive relating to corporate rights. 42 The facts of the dispute fell before the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU ; therefore, with respect to the Ynos case, the SC made a conclusion that it had no duty to initiate a preliminary ruling procedure in this matter. However, it subsequently observed that the Czech legislation had been adjusted prior to the accession of the Czech Republic to EU to comply with the Third Directive. Therefore, the SC applied the euro-conform interpretation of the Czech law with the Directive, even though not formulating the direct obligation to apply the EU law. The same approach was confirmed by the SC in other decisions 43 where a reference to the decision of the CJEU in the Ynos case was systematically used in other pre-accession disputes. One of the first cases where the SC used the acte clair doctrine concerned a bankruptcy regulation. The procedure was conducted at the beginning of 2005, i.e. shortly after the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU. It concerned an incompatibility of the debtor’s activity with an EU Regulation. 44 In its conclusions, the SC explicitly accepted the CILFIT criteria. It is notable that when quoting them it directly attached the English version of the relevant sections of the CIFLIT decision. 45 Subsequently, the SC applied these criteria to the case with respect to both acte éclairé and acte clair doctrines. Hence, this decision is one of the first cases where the SC approved the CILFIT criteria. 3.2 Comparison of language versions Besides approval of the CILFIT doctrine, the abovementioned decision was also significant for the fulfilment of the CILFIT criteria, namely the requirement of language comparison. The SC used all language versions of the contested EU law provision. This approach appears to be rather formalistic, as the SC subsequently did not labour on these language versions in the text and did not analyse them in detail. The exceptionality of the approach is also confirmed by the fact that a reference to all language versions was not found in subsequent decisions. Comparison of only several language versions appears, for instance, in the context of insolvency procedure (Slovak, English and German), 46 of corporate law (English, Spanish and German) 47 or of common agricultural policy (Slovak, French, English and German). 48 40 C-302/04 Ynos kft v. János Varga [2006] ECR I-371, point 38. 41 Judgement of 23 May 2007, 29 Odo 1128/2005. 42 Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, OJ L 295, 20.10.1978, p. 36-43. 43 Judgement of the SC of 30 August 2006, 29 Odo 242/2006, Judgement of 1 September 2009, 29 Cdo 2011/2007, Judgement of 30 September 2009, 29 Cdo 4284/2007, or Resolution of 14 March 2012, 31 Cdo 1387/2009. 44 Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, OJ L 160, 30. 6. 2000, p. 1-18. 45 Similarly, also Judgement of the SC of 27 January 2011, 29 Cdo 2181/2008.

46 Resolution of the SC of 31 May 2012, 29 NSCR 13/2010. 47 Resolution of the SC of 28 March 2012, 29 Cdo 253/2010. 48 Resolution of the SC of 20 August 2012, 28 Cdo 2927/2010.

583