In a ruling delivered earlier this summer, June 2023, in Case 18/2022, the Supreme Court of Denmark (Højesteret, Danmarks Domstole) 🇩🇰 held that it, during an earlier order in the same case, did not infringe EU law as a national court, when it gave limited reasons for deciding not to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union 🇪🇺.
In the case at hand, Lady & Kid and Others v Ministry for Taxation, a tax was levied contrary to EU law, and the reimbursement of that tax was also contrary to EU law. But that was on substance. The procedural and general aspects of EU law are far more interesting here. In an early order, the Supreme Court refused to refer the case to the CJEU on the basis that, in its view, there was no doubt about the interpretation of EU law for the case at hand at that juncture. It did not justify its decision in any elaborate way, and only provided a brief statement of reasons.
The parties, therefore, requested the Supreme Court, after this order, to make another reference for a preliminary ruling, this time, however, on the issue of the Supreme Court refusing to state sufficient reasons, in their view, for declining the request, in line with the obligations upon the Supreme Court as per Case C-561/19, Consorzio Italian Management (the ‘CILFIT refined’ case).
The Supreme Court held that, according to its initial order, it stated that whether a reference for a preliminary ruling was needed would be reconsidered later in the case, and in order not to make a final determination on ‘if’ and/or ‘when’ a reference would be needed, the fact that it only contained a brief statement of reasons for not referring the case at the early stage of the case was not in conflict with the Consorzio Italian Management judgment of the CJEU.
The order of the Supreme Court of Denmark 🇩🇰 can be accessed at the following link: https://lnkd.in/d8fC66Rw
Graham Butler