This thesis revolves around one of the secure institutions of the Czech civil procedural law which provides the settlement of legal relations on a temporary basis or ensures the possibility of realization of an execution of judgement. The goal of this thesis is to demonstrate a complete summary of Czech legal regulation of a preliminary ruling in a civil proceedings, which can be used in situations that renders immediate solutions necessary and is impossible to hold back until the decision on merits.The thesis is composed of five chapters. The first chapter explicates the preliminary ruling as the civil prodecural law institute and demonstrates the various types of preliminary ruling. The conclusion of this chapter highlights the legal nature of this institute which includes preliminar and temporal settlement of a legal relations between parties to an action. The second chapter briefly outlines the history of the preliminary ruling in Czech legislation. Chapter three, the most important part of the thesis, is concerned with the general preliminary ruling. The structure of this chapter respects the system of a legal provisions contained in Civil Procedure Rules. The third chapter is subdivided into thirteen subchapters. The first seven subchapters illustrates preconditions of a civil procedure of a...

6 Preliminary ruling in civil proceedings Abstract This thesis presents preliminary ruling as one of the secure institutions of the Czech civil procedural law, which become in case if there is a need of the settlement of legal relations on a temporary basis or ensure realization of an execution of judgement. This secure institution is temporary, which sorts out rights and obligations of the parties of the action until decision on merits. Thesis is divided into four chapters. In the first chapter author is dealing with concept of preliminary ruling, as well as types and purpose of preliminary ruling. In this chapter author pursue historical development of preliminary ruling before 1st of January 2014 and also after this date, when significant amendment was approved, which divided legislation of preliminary ruling. Second chapter is concentrated on preliminary ruling in Czech civil procedural law. This chapter author consider as crucial, because its include general preliminary ruling. This general legislation of preliminary ruling is also used on special preliminary ruling, when Special court proceedings act contains subsidiarity of civil procedure code. This chapter also includes court proceedings while deciding about preliminary ruling, jurisdiction of the court, duty obligation, assurance, contents of the...

Les cinquante dernières années témoignent d’une multiplication des mécanismes préjudiciels. Le mouvement fut initié par le renvoi préjudiciel à la Cour de justice, suivi de peu par le renvoi préventif au Tribunal des conflits. Il s’est confirmé à la fin des années 1980 et au début des années 1990 avec la création des demandes d’avis au Conseil d’État et à la Cour de cassation. Il s’accélère aujourd’hui avec la création récente de la question prioritaire de constitutionnalité et l’adoption du protocole n°15 à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme instaurant un mécanisme de demande d’avis devant la Cour éponyme. Le travail de recherche invite à s’interroger sur les causes de cette dévotion particulière. L’étude démontre que l’utilisation de la technique préjudicielle poursuit aujourd’hui un effet particulier : celui d’assurer l’unification de l’interprétation des textes juridiques. Les mécanismes préjudiciels répondent donc à un besoin, celui d’unifier l’interprétation du droit, besoin aujourd’hui insatisfait du fait de la décadence des mécanismes hiérarchiques jusqu’alors chargés de cet office. En effet, l’accélération du temps du droit et le développement de la supra-légalité ont périmé ces mécanismes sédimentaires qui, tels la cassation, reposent sur la sanction. Même effet (l’unification du droit), même moyen (la technique préjudicielle), même cause (la péremption des mécanismes traditionnels) : il ne fait aucun doute que tous les mécanismes préjudiciels contemporains sont apparentés. Ils traduisent une nouvelle manière d’unifier l’interprétation qui, telle une lame de fond, étend indéfiniment son emprise. Il était impérieux de construire un nouvel outil juridique capable de témoigner de cette évolution, de créer une notion nouvelle : le renvoi préalable. Le renvoi préalable s’entend donc de « tout mécanisme par lequel une juridiction suprême uniformise l’interprétation d’un texte, sur le renvoi d’une question de droit posée à l’occasion d’un litige ». / During the last fifty years, the number of preliminary ruling mechanisms has multiplied. The movement first started with the preliminary ruling referral to the Court of Justice, which was soon followed by the preventive removal to the Court of Conflict. During the end of the eighties and in the early nineties, the movement reached confirmation through the creation of the possibility to ask its views to the State Council and to the Court of Cassation. It’s now getting faster and faster because of the recent creation of both the priority preliminary ruling on constitutionality, and the adoption, in front of the European Convention on Human Rights, of the protocol number fifteen, which introduces a system allowing the request for opinions in front of the eponymous Court. The research work invites to question about the causes of that singular devotion.The study proves that the use of the preliminary ruling procedure is nowadays endowed with a particular aim: that of ensuring the unification of the way legal texts are interpreted. Preliminary ruling mechanisms are the answer to a need, that of unifying the interpretation of the law, that need still remains unmet because of the decay of the hierarchical mechanisms which have been so far asked to manage it. As a matter of fact, both the acceleration of law time and the development of the supra-legality have collapsed these sediment mechanisms, which, just like Cassation, have to do with punishment.The same effect (the unification of the law), the same means (preliminary ruling technique), the same cause (the collapse of traditional mechanisms): there is no doubt about the link between all contemporary preliminary ruling mechanisms. They all reveal a new way of unifying interpretation which, like a tidal wave, becomes more and more powerful. It was becoming urgent to create a new legal tool which would be able to reveal this evolution, to create a new notion: pre-filing referrals. Pre-filing referrals is therefore said to be “any mechanism through which a supreme jurisdiction standardizes a text interpretation, after the referring of a law question which is raised in case of dispute”.

No presente trabalho busca-se demonstrar a inovação trazida pela regulamentação dos Estados-partes do Mercosul, especialmente pela brasileira, que conferiu ao particular o direito subjetivo de postular Opiniões Consultivas diretamente ao Tribunal Permanente de Revisão. Para tanto, destaca-se a condição de sujeito de direito internacional adquirida pelo particular por meio de normas advindas de integrações entre Estados soberanos. Da mesma forma, a importância que possui um tribunal legitimado e com atribuições claras, tendo por exemplos a União Europeia e da Organização dos Estados Americanos, onde o Tribunal de Justiça e Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos são reconhecidos como responsáveis diretos pelo sucesso destes blocos. Dentre suas competências, destaca-se o protagonismo que tiveram as suas faces consultivas, representadas pelo reenvio prejudicial e pelas opiniões consultivas, respectivamente, instrumentos que não foram apenas responsáveis pela harmonização das legislações internas com a norma da integração, mas também por criar uma verdadeira cooperação jurisdicional entre organismos jurisdicionais interacionais e as jurisdições nacionais. Institutos que se assemelham às opiniões consultivas do Mercosul, cuja legitimação em postulá-las diretamente ao Tribunal Permanente de Revisão é conferida ao particular de forma inovadora em processos de integração. / This paper seeks to demonstrate the innovation brought about by the regulations of the Mercosur States Parties, especially by the Brazilian, which gave the individual the subjective right to apply for Consultative Opinions directly to the Permanent Review Tribunal. In order to do so, the condition of being a subject of international law acquired by the individual is highlighted, through norms derived from integrations between sovereign states. Likewise, the importance of a legitimate and clearly defined court, for example the European Union and the Organization of American States, where the Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are recognized as directly responsible for the success of these blocs. Among its competences, the leading role played by advisory opinions, represented by the reference for a preliminary ruling and by the advisory opinions respectively, were not only responsible for the harmonization of domestic legislation with the integration rule but also for creating a genuine Jurisdictional cooperation between national courts and national courts. Institutes that resemble the consultative opinions of Mercosur, whose legitimacy in postulating them directly to the Permanent Review Tribunal is given to the individual in an innovative way in integration processes.

Magistro baigiamojo darbo pavadinimas „Nacionalinių teismų teisė ir pareiga kreiptis į Europos Teisingumo Teismą“. Darbą sudaro įvadas, keturios dalys, išvados ir pasiūlymai. Magistro darbe nagrinėjami teisės ir pareigos kreiptis dėl preliminaraus nutarimo probleminiai aspektai, didžiausią dėmesį skiriant kreipimosi į ETT ir asmens iš Bendrijos kilusios teisės apsaugos santykio analizei. Autorė darbe remiasi Lietuvos ir užsienio šalių autorių moksliniais darbais, konferencijų medžiaga, ETT jurisprudencija. / The title of the thesis is “The Right and Obligation of the National Courts to Apply to the European Court of Justice”. The thesis consists of introduction, four parts, conclusions and suggestions. The work includes the analysis of the problematic aspects related to the right and obligation to apply for the preliminary ruling. The main attention is paid to the analysis of the relation between the cases of appeal to the ECJ and the protection of a person’s right arising from the Community. The author of the work refers to the scientific works of Lithuanian and foreign authors, conference material, the jurisprudence of the ECJ.

This thesis describes the system of submitting observations envisaged in Article 23 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European Court of Justice. The thesis seeks to illustrate and criticize the utilization of the system enshrined in Article 23 by the member states of the European Union. The experience of the United Kingdom is analyzed by examining the preliminary ruling judgments that the government of the United Kingdom has submitted observations in order to describe the system and demonstrate its application by a member state of the European Union.

No presente trabalho busca-se demonstrar a inovação trazida pela regulamentação dos Estados-partes do Mercosul, especialmente pela brasileira, que conferiu ao particular o direito subjetivo de postular Opiniões Consultivas diretamente ao Tribunal Permanente de Revisão. Para tanto, destaca-se a condição de sujeito de direito internacional adquirida pelo particular por meio de normas advindas de integrações entre Estados soberanos. Da mesma forma, a importância que possui um tribunal legitimado e com atribuições claras, tendo por exemplos a União Europeia e da Organização dos Estados Americanos, onde o Tribunal de Justiça e Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos são reconhecidos como responsáveis diretos pelo sucesso destes blocos. Dentre suas competências, destaca-se o protagonismo que tiveram as suas faces consultivas, representadas pelo reenvio prejudicial e pelas opiniões consultivas, respectivamente, instrumentos que não foram apenas responsáveis pela harmonização das legislações internas com a norma da integração, mas também por criar uma verdadeira cooperação jurisdicional entre organismos jurisdicionais interacionais e as jurisdições nacionais. Institutos que se assemelham às opiniões consultivas do Mercosul, cuja legitimação em postulá-las diretamente ao Tribunal Permanente de Revisão é conferida ao particular de forma inovadora em processos de integração. / This paper seeks to demonstrate the innovation brought about by the regulations of the Mercosur States Parties, especially by the Brazilian, which gave the individual the subjective right to apply for Consultative Opinions directly to the Permanent Review Tribunal. In order to do so, the condition of being a subject of international law acquired by the individual is highlighted, through norms derived from integrations between sovereign states. Likewise, the importance of a legitimate and clearly defined court, for example the European Union and the Organization of American States, where the Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are recognized as directly responsible for the success of these blocs. Among its competences, the leading role played by advisory opinions, represented by the reference for a preliminary ruling and by the advisory opinions respectively, were not only responsible for the harmonization of domestic legislation with the integration rule but also for creating a genuine Jurisdictional cooperation between national courts and national courts. Institutes that resemble the consultative opinions of Mercosur, whose legitimacy in postulating them directly to the Permanent Review Tribunal is given to the individual in an innovative way in integration processes.

No presente trabalho busca-se demonstrar a inovação trazida pela regulamentação dos Estados-partes do Mercosul, especialmente pela brasileira, que conferiu ao particular o direito subjetivo de postular Opiniões Consultivas diretamente ao Tribunal Permanente de Revisão. Para tanto, destaca-se a condição de sujeito de direito internacional adquirida pelo particular por meio de normas advindas de integrações entre Estados soberanos. Da mesma forma, a importância que possui um tribunal legitimado e com atribuições claras, tendo por exemplos a União Europeia e da Organização dos Estados Americanos, onde o Tribunal de Justiça e Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos são reconhecidos como responsáveis diretos pelo sucesso destes blocos. Dentre suas competências, destaca-se o protagonismo que tiveram as suas faces consultivas, representadas pelo reenvio prejudicial e pelas opiniões consultivas, respectivamente, instrumentos que não foram apenas responsáveis pela harmonização das legislações internas com a norma da integração, mas também por criar uma verdadeira cooperação jurisdicional entre organismos jurisdicionais interacionais e as jurisdições nacionais. Institutos que se assemelham às opiniões consultivas do Mercosul, cuja legitimação em postulá-las diretamente ao Tribunal Permanente de Revisão é conferida ao particular de forma inovadora em processos de integração. / This paper seeks to demonstrate the innovation brought about by the regulations of the Mercosur States Parties, especially by the Brazilian, which gave the individual the subjective right to apply for Consultative Opinions directly to the Permanent Review Tribunal. In order to do so, the condition of being a subject of international law acquired by the individual is highlighted, through norms derived from integrations between sovereign states. Likewise, the importance of a legitimate and clearly defined court, for example the European Union and the Organization of American States, where the Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are recognized as directly responsible for the success of these blocs. Among its competences, the leading role played by advisory opinions, represented by the reference for a preliminary ruling and by the advisory opinions respectively, were not only responsible for the harmonization of domestic legislation with the integration rule but also for creating a genuine Jurisdictional cooperation between national courts and national courts. Institutes that resemble the consultative opinions of Mercosur, whose legitimacy in postulating them directly to the Permanent Review Tribunal is given to the individual in an innovative way in integration processes.

L’instauration de la question prioritaire de constitutionnalité (QPC) conduit à repenser les rapports entre les juridictions suprêmes : Conseil constitutionnel, Cour de cassation et Conseil d’Etat. Elle met aussi en lumière les spécificités de la fonction de juger – et notamment l’exercice, par le juge, de son pouvoir d’interprétation. De fait, en créant un lien direct entre les trois juridictions suprêmes, la QPC brouille les frontières de leurs compétences respectives et les place dans une situation d’interdépendance qui impacte directement l’étendue et l’exercice de leur pouvoir herméneutique. La QPC s’avère donc être le vecteur – c’est-à-dire à la fois le support, et le révélateur – d’une concurrence très vive entre les interprètes. De ce fait, il n’est pas possible de considérer qu’un juge détient le « dernier mot » pour l’attribution d’un sens à la loi ou à la Constitution – ces deux textes étant conjointement et simultanément interprétés par l’ensemble des juges du système. Le contrôle de constitutionnalité a posteriori met ainsi en lumière l’existence d’un processus interprétatif à la fois continu et inachevé. L’étude de ce contentieux permet donc de mieux comprendre le travail herméneutique effectué par le juge – en donnant l’occasion de forger le concept d’interprétation normative. / The introduction of the The Priority Preliminary Ruling on the Issue of Constitutionality (QPC) leads to rethinking the relations between the supreme jurisdictions : Constitutional Council, Court of Cassation and Council of State. It also highlights the specificities of the judging’s function- and in particular the exercise by the judge of his interpretation’s power. In fact, by creating a direct link between the three supreme jurisdictions, the QPC blurs the boundaries of their respective jurisdictions and places them in a situation of interdependence that directly impacts the extent and the exercise of their hermeneutical power. Therefore, the QPC turns out to be the vector - that is to say, both the medium and the developer - of a very lively competition between the performers. Thereby, it is not possible to consider that a judge has the "last word" for the attribution of a meaning to the law or the Constitution - these two texts being jointly and simultaneously interpreted by the whole judges of the system. The QPC thus highlights the existence of an interpretive process that is both ongoing and uncompleted. The study of this litigation so lets understand the hermeneutical work done by the judge - by giving the opportunity to forge the concept of normative interpretation.

En tant que juge de droit commun du droit communautaire puis du droit de l'Union européenne, le Conseil d’Etat français a dû intégrer le droit communautaire puis le droit de l'Union européenne en tant que norme de référence du contrôle de conventionnalité. Pour l’aider dans cette intégration, le Conseil d’Etat dispose d’un outil : le renvoi préjudiciel.L’utilisation du renvoi préjudiciel par le Conseil d’Etat correspond à la recherche d’un équilibre fragile de partage des compétences entre la Cour de justice et le Conseil d’Etat. Le Conseil d’Etat a d’abord essayé de trouver sa place et en réalité de déterminer son rôle de juge de droit commun, il a aussi contribué à définir le rôle de juge national dans la procédure du renvoi préjudiciel. Ensuite, parce qu’il a su contribuer à définir le rôle de juge national dans le dialogue avec la Cour de justice, le Conseil d’Etat a utilisé le renvoi préjudiciel comme un outil de collaboration entre le juge national et la Cour de justice dans le but de parvenir à l’application harmonieuse du droit de l'Union européenne.Cette intégration a été lente puisqu’elle a eu pour socle un a priori négatif puis des incompréhensions entre la Cour de justice et le Conseil d’Etat puisque ces derniers n’envisageaient pas la procédure de renvoi préjudiciel sous le même angle. Si aujourd’hui, le Conseil d’Etat et la Cour de justice dialoguent dans la même direction, les divergences de conception, de perception du rôle du renvoi préjudiciel au cours des années d’échanges entre les deux juridictions ont permis que se développe un riche et constructif dialogue qui s’est révélé être bénéfique pour le droit de l'Union européenne. / As ordinary court of law of community law, then of law of the European Union, the French Council of State had to integrate community law followed by law of the European Union as reference standards of the control of conformity to a convention. In order to help in this integration, the Council of State has a tool: preliminary ruling proceedings. The use of preliminary ruling proceedings by the Council of State corresponds to the search for a delicate balance of shared competences between the Court of Justice and the Council of State. The Council of State tried at first to find its place and, in fact, to establish its role as a judge of common law. It also contributed to define the role of national judge in the preliminary ruling proceedings. Then, because it was able to contribute to define the role of the national judge in the exchange with the Court of Justice, the Council of State used preliminary ruling proceedings as a tool of understanding between the national judge and the Court of Justice in order to achieve the uniform application of Union law. This integration has been slow because at its core was a negative a priori, followed by a lack of understanding between the Court of Justice and the Council of State because the latter did not envisage preliminary ruling proceedings in the same way. If today the Council of State and the Court of Justice have entered into a dialogue in the same direction, divergences in conception, in perception of the role of the preliminary ruling proceedings during years of exchange between the two jurisdictions allowed the development of a rich and constructive dialogue, beneficial for the law of the European Union.