Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union
in Case C-348/10, of the 10th of November 2011:
The National Judge
against the 'Undefeatable' Feature of Time
Maria Messini
Ph.D. (Public Law), M.A. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
LL.M. Heidelberg University Ruperto Carola, Lawyer at Court
The aim of the approach of public procedures for the award of public service concession, presented here, is to highlight the position of the national Judge in the current European structure. In particular, he is the one to intervene for the good of "internal" legality, unless the reference is to the aspect of 'time', in the meaning of the time of entry into force of European or national provisions. The interesting question that arises then is whether the CJEU is allowed to "weave an interpretative veil" on the future decision of the national court, stating the immediate application of an 'identical jurisprudential acquis' but actually 'irrelevant' to the public contract at issue. This is because this would apply in a different infringement, as laid down in two separate directives which have in general different texts. Moreover, in the present phase of the European Union, the CJEU role does not include the classification of the public contract.
L'approche présentée ici des procédures publiques en vue de l'obtention d'une concession de service public a pour but de mettre en lumière la place du juge national au sein de la structure européenne actuelle. En particulier, c'est lui qui intervient pour défendre la légalité "interne", sauf si le renvoi concerne la "date", au sens de la date d'entrée en vigueur de dispositions européennes ou nationales. La question intéressante alors soulevée est de savoir si la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne est autorisée à "tisser un voile interprétatif" sur la décision future de la cour nationale en se prononçant pour l'application immédiate d'un 'acquis jurisprudentiel identique' mais en fait 'sans rapport' avec le marché public en question puisqu'il s'appliquerait à une infraction différente, telle que définie dans deux directives distinctes qui ont en général des textes différents et que, à la phase présente de l'Union européenne, le rôle de la CJUE n'inclut pas la catégorisation du marché public.
[The case examined in this article is carefully and intently chosen from the boundless Jurisprudentia since it is unique in its kind primarily because in this case the court clarifies for the first time the operating risk of public service contracts; moreover, the court expounds in this case an unexpected idea about a direct effect of the interpretation on an identical provision of the Directive in the field of public contracts. The author takes pleasantly the responsibility for the sin of potential errors or omissions. Comments are always welcome in: messinmaria@yahoo.gr]
