Cilfit Forever? On The Scope Of Article 267, Third Paragraph, TFEU

Skip to content European University Institute Open EUI Academic Units menu

• Jump to:
• Department of Economics
• Department of History
• Department of Law
• Department of Political and Social Sciences
• Florence School of Transnational Governance
• Max Weber Programme for Postdoctoral Studies
• Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies

Apply Events News People Research Search Search European University Institute website Search Search in: Web People Research Help Add to calendar 2021-10-21 14:30 2021-10-21 16:00 Europe/Rome Cilfit Forever? On the scope of Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU Sala del Torrino Villa Salviati- Castle YYYY-MM-DD Print Share: Share on Facebook Share on BlueSky Share on X Share on LinkedIn Send by email Oct 21 2021

14:30 - 16:00 CEST

Sala del Torrino, Villa Salviati- Castle

• Department of Law

This event organised by the European Union Law Working Group (EU Law WG) hosts a presentation by guest speaker Professor François-Xavier Millet, Professor of Public Law at the University of the French West Indies, Former Referendaire within the Chambers of AG Bobek and EUI Alumnus.

In this talk, Professor Millet will discuss the issue of last instance national courts’ duty to make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union in the light of the recent judgment in case C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management. The abstract of the presentation can be found below.

In Case C-561/19 Consorzio Italian Management, the Court was offered the possibility to revisit the scope of last instance national courts’ duty to refer, in particular its Cilfit case-law. While Advocate General Bobek articulated a new test against the background of the flaws deriving from the judgment in Cilfit (and its progeny), the Court has not appeared willing to change tack. At the same time, the Court has introduced a few novelties, in particular the duty to state reasons for non-referral.

How can that decision to largely keep the status quo ante be interpreted? What were the strengths but also the potential weaknesses of the Opinion that could perhaps explain such a low-profile judgment? What other factors may have come into play? What of the duty to state reasons for not referring questions?

After a brief presentation of the opinion and the judgment by the speaker, the audience will be cordially invited to engage with all those issues and try to anticipate what could come next, if anything. Shall Cilfit be now considered the ultimate horizon for Article 267, third paragraph, TFEU or are there factors that could still lead to an overhaul in the near future? The participants are strongly recommended to read the Opinion and judgment in advance for a fruitful collective discussion.

Contact(s):

• Valeria Raso

Speaker(s):

• François-Xavier Millet

Go back to top of the page