SBORNÍK 66 SVOČ 2016

next section). Even though, a short overview of the most important cases follows in order to gain an insight into the types of questions to be dealt by the SCC. Although Slovakia acceded to the EU in 2004, the Article 7 of the Slovak Constitution, stating the primacy of ‘legally binding acts of the EU,’ entered into force already in 2001. This theoretically offered the room for individuals to submit their complaints in this regard before the accession, but no such case can be identified in the Court’s jurisprudence. 43 4.1 Individual complaints post-accession After 2004, several cases were concerned with submitting a question for preliminary ruling to the ECJ. Shortly after the accession, the SCC was reluctant to react to complaints that considered the unwillingness of general courts to submit preliminary questions and include the relevant statutes and case-law of the EU into the justification of their decisions (e.g. II. ÚS 90/05, III. ÚS 151/07). 44 Later, it declared the obligation to submit preliminary questions, if the petitioner justifiably (italics M.S.) requests that step from the court, but only on the level of courts of last instance. These are, according to the SCC, only the Slovak Supreme Court and the SCC itself. 45 According to one commentary, this interpretation is not supported by provisions of the Slovak Code of Civil Procedure, as sometimes general (e.g. regional or even district) courts serve as courts of last instance. 46 Hence, the decision allowed the SCC to – at least formally – control the submitting procedure of preliminary questions even though it committed itself to the duty to submit them in relevant situations. 47 A somewhat different assessment of Decisions II. ÚS 90/05 and IV. ÚS 206/08 48 considers both as a basis for the construction of a doctrine that if an appellate court does not submit the preliminary question in a relevant case, this forms a sufficient condition to submit an appeal on the higher instance of the judiciary (e.g. the Supreme Court), which is already bound to submit the preliminary question to the ECJ. This argument can be agreed with only in part, because while there is indeed a possibility to appeal to a court of higher instance on the ground of the lower court not submitting a preliminary question on the basis of the case law of the SCC, there are some procedures where neither an ordinary, nor an extraordinary appeal can 43 Jánošíková, Martina. Komunitárne právo v judikatúre ústavných súdov SR a ČR. Trnava: Trnavská univerzita, 2009, pp. 39-40. 44 Also Siman, Michael: Vybrané prípady aplikácie komunitárneho práva v rozhodovacej praxi Ústavného súdu SR. In Pogáčová, Juliana, Michael Siman and Miroslav Slašťan (eds.): Komunitárne právo na Slovensku päť rokov „po“. Bratislava: Slovenská asociácia európskeho práva, 2009, pp. 93- 99. 45 Decision IV. ÚS 206/08 (p. 1, 9). 46 Siman, Michael: Analysis of the judgment No. IV. ÚS 206/08. Available at: http://www.saep.sk/?q=system/ files/Uznesenie%20US%20SR%20%20_IV.%20%25DAS%20206-08- 50_povinnost_predlozit_PO.pdf (accessed 06-02-2016).

47 Siman, Michael, op. cit. (No. 46), pp. 99-107. 48 Jánošíková, Martina, op. cit. (No. 43), pp. 42-58.

41