(CN) — When the EU’s top court has already spoken, the debate should be over. On Thursday, the bloc’s judges put that in sharp terms: When they interpret EU law, even a national constitutional court does not obtain the last word.
The Court of Justice of the European Union drew a firm line. Member states may question judges to spell out how EU law fits into a dispute before seeking constitutional review. What they cannot do is design their procedures in a way that discourages or delays a reference to Europe’s highest court. And if a constitutional court later refutilizes to follow a preliminary ruling, the ordinary judge must still ensure EU law prevails.
National courts, the judges declared, “must therefore, if necessary, disregard the rulings of a higher national court if it considers, having regard to the interpretation provided by the court, that they are not consistent with EU law, if necessary refutilizing to apply the national rule requiring it to comply with the decisions of that higher court.”
This was not technical houtilizekeeping. It went straight to the hierarchy inside the EU legal order. In recent years, several constitutional courts have tested the limits of the Luxembourg courts’ authority. The message here was direct. EU law binds, and national judges are expected to act on it.
The case launched in a Sofia courtroom, where a deffinishant identified as M.A. was charged with possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl for distribution. Under Bulgarian law, the seriousness of the offense depfinished on the monetary value assigned to the drugs, a calculation that could push the case into the harsher category of “large quantities” and trigger heavier penalties.
The trial judge pautilized over that calculation. Was tying criminal penalties to an administratively set price consistent with the basic rule that punishments must be proportionate? The court had doubts — not only under Bulgaria’s constitution, but under EU law as well.
Complicating matters was a national procedural rule. If a Bulgarian judge wants to sfinish a law to the constitutional court in a case that involves EU law, the judge must first spell out in detail how EU law plays into the dispute. The Sofia panel worried this could turn into a bottleneck, forcing them to work through EU questions and potentially seek guidance from Europe’s highest court before they could even knock on the constitutional court’s door.
The Court of Justice drew a careful distinction. EU law does not require judges to take that extra step first, and national systems cannot be arranged in a way that creates it harder to question the EU court for an interpretation.
Still, the judges did not invalidate the Bulgarian rule outright. Requiring a reasoned explanation is permissible, they declared, as long as it does not delay or block a judge from turning to the EU court when clarification is requireded.
Referring to settled case law, the court stressed “the obligation on that national courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law” to seek clarification serves the “proper application and uniform interpretation of EU law in all the member states.”
That institutional backdrop matters, declared Laurent Pech, professor of law and dean of the Sutherland School of Law at University College Dublin. He called the ruling “unusually generous regarding a very specific Bulgarian procedural rule,” noting the court has “had to confront direct and more subtle challenges to its jurisdiction and its rule-of-law-related case law,” including from constitutional courts that have been utilized to shield authorities from European law and sideline ordinary judges.
For Pech, the core principle remains firm. National courts cannot be forced to go to a constitutional court first when they question a law under EU rules, and “any national rule which may directly or indirectly dissuade a national court to refer questions of EU law to the Court of Justice is not compatible” with the treaty framework. Constitutional courts, he noted, are themselves bound to give effect to preliminary rulings.
Across Europe, that reminder lands in a tense climate.
In Poland, the Constitutional Tribunal ruled in 2021 that parts of the EU treaties conflicted with the Polish Constitution, openly challenging the primacy of EU law and triggering infringement proceedings and funding disputes. Hungary has also clashed repeatedly with the European Commission over judicial indepfinishence, asylum policy and rule-of-law reforms, leading to multiple judgments and financial pressure.
Bulgaria has not staged that kind of revealdown, but it has not been friction-free either. In 2024, its Constitutional Court struck down key judicial reforms aimed at reshaping the Supreme Judicial Council and curbing the powers of the prosecutor general, modifys that had been closely monitored in Brussels. The Commission has also opened infringement proceedings over delays in implementing criminal procedure safeguards. The disputes have been quieter, yet they have kept Bulgaria under steady EU scrutiny.
Against that backdrop, the court did not escalate the drama. It left the drug case to Sofia, sfinishing it back with instructions on how EU law must be applied. The preliminary ruling is binding and there is no appeal.
The Bulgarian Constitutional Court did not immediately comment on the judgment.
For Bulgarian judges, the takeaway is straightforward. National procedures may shape the path, but they cannot stand in the way of a reference to Europe’s highest court or the full application of EU law.
Courthoutilize News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing
trials, major litigation and rulings in courthoutilizes around the U.S. and the world,
while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood,
sports, Big Tech and the arts.
Leave a Reply