43 / 610
41
next section). Even though, a short overview of the most important cases follows in
order to gain an insight into the types of questions to be dealt by the SCC.
Although Slovakia acceded to the EU in 2004, the Article 7 of the Slovak
Constitution, stating the primacy of ‘legally binding acts of the EU,’ entered into
force already in 2001. This theoretically offered the room for individuals to submit
their complaints in this regard before the accession, but no such case can be identified
in the Court’s jurisprudence.
43
4.1 Individual complaints post-accession
After 2004, several cases were concerned with submitting a question for preliminary
ruling to the ECJ. Shortly after the accession, the SCC was reluctant to react to
complaints that considered the unwillingness of general courts to submit preliminary
questions and include the relevant statutes and case-law of the EU into the justification
of their decisions (e.g. II. ÚS 90/05, III. ÚS 151/07).
44
Later, it declared the obligation
to submit preliminary questions, if the petitioner
justifiably
(italics M.S.) requests
that step from the court, but only on the level of courts of last instance. These are,
according to the SCC, only the Slovak Supreme Court and the SCC itself.
45
According
to one commentary, this interpretation is not supported by provisions of the Slovak
Code of Civil Procedure, as sometimes general (e.g. regional or even district) courts
serve as courts of last instance.
46
Hence, the decision allowed the SCC to – at least
formally – control the submitting procedure of preliminary questions even though
it committed itself to the duty to submit them in relevant situations.
47
A somewhat
different assessment of Decisions II. ÚS 90/05 and
IV. ÚS 206/08
48
considers both as a basis for the construction of a doctrine that if
an appellate court does not submit the preliminary question in a relevant case, this
forms a sufficient condition to submit an appeal on the higher instance of the judiciary
(e.g. the Supreme Court), which is already bound to submit the preliminary question
to the ECJ. This argument can be agreed with only in part, because while there is
indeed a possibility to appeal to a court of higher instance on the ground of the lower
court not submitting a preliminary question on the basis of the case law of the SCC,
there are some procedures where neither an ordinary, nor an extraordinary appeal can
43
Jánošíková, Martina. Komunitárne právo v judikatúre ústavných súdov SR a ČR. Trnava: Trnavská
univerzita, 2009, pp. 39-40.
44
Also Siman, Michael: Vybrané prípady aplikácie komunitárneho práva v rozhodovacej praxi Ústavného
súdu SR. In Pogáčová, Juliana, Michael Siman and Miroslav Slašťan (eds.): Komunitárne právo na
Slovensku päť rokov „po“. Bratislava: Slovenská asociácia európskeho práva, 2009, pp. 93- 99.
45
Decision IV. ÚS 206/08 (p. 1, 9).
46
Siman, Michael: Analysis of the judgment No. IV. ÚS 206/08. Available at:
http://www.saep.sk/?q=system/
files/Uznesenie%20US%20SR%20%20_IV.%20%25DAS%20206-08- 50_povinnost_predlozit_PO.pdf
(accessed 06-02-2016).
47
Siman, Michael, op. cit. (No. 46), pp. 99-107.
48
Jánošíková, Martina, op. cit. (No. 43), pp. 42-58.