The relationship between the preliminary ruling procedure and the question on constitutionality
Keywords:
Reference for a preliminary ruling. Article 267 TFUE, Interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality, Article 163 SC, Court of Justice of the European Union, Constitutional Court, Proceedings of preliminary normative control, Priority quesAbstract
This article analyses the relationship between the preliminary ruling procedure before the CJUE and the interlocutory procedures for the review of constitutionality in several Member States, with a focus on the Spanish system, in those cases where the two incidents have their origin in the same judicial proceedings. For this purpose, we examine the reasons of principle which, according to the respective legal systems, justify the priority of each of these mechanisms of interlocutory normative control. Acknowledging the difficulty to arrive at an entirely satisfactory solution from the perspective of both systems, this article draws attention to another interest that is often insufficiently taken into account: that of the litigants themselves. In this connection, and with the aim of preventing undue delay, we point to the possibility for the judge to abandon, as far as possible, the criterion of temporal succession, and instead, to operate under a criterion of simultaneity.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Downloads
How to Cite
Cruz Villalón, P., & Requejo Pagés, J. L. (2015). The relationship between the preliminary ruling procedure and the question on constitutionality. Revista De Derecho Comunitario Europeo, (50), 173–194. Retrieved from https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/RDCE/article/view/38974
Issue
Section
STUDIES
License
Copyright
Submission of a manuscript to the RDCE implies having read and accepted the journal's editorial guidelines and instructions for authors. When a work is accepted for publication, it is understood that the author grants the RDCE exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and, where appropriate, sale of his manuscript for exploitation in all countries of the world in printed version, as well as any other magnetic, optical and digital media.
Authors shall transfer the publishing rights of their manuscript to RDCE so that it may be disseminated and capitalised on Intranets, the Internet and any web portals and wireless devices that the publisher may decide, by placing it at the disposal of users so that the latter may consult it online and extract content from it, print it and/or download and save it. These activities must comply with the terms and conditions outlined on the website hosting the work. However, the RDCE authorises authors of papers published in the journal to include a copy of these papers, once published, on their personal websites and/or other open access digital repositories. Copies must include a specific mention of RDCE, citing the year and issue of the journal in which the article was published, and adding a link to the RDCE website(s).
A year after its publication, the works of the RDCE will be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated, without the right to commercial exploitation and the elaboration of derivative works.
Plagiarism and scientific fraud
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Practices constituting scientific plagiarism are as follows:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
Warning
Any breach of these Rules shall constitute a ground for rejection of the manuscript submitted.
