It takes two to tango. The preliminary reference dance between the CJEU and national courts

The European Union has had a tremendous impact on national laws and politics. One of the most important drivers of the European integration project has been the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Without the CJEU, the EU would undeniably look completely different. The CJEU has only been able to have such impact as a result of the preliminary questions the national courts have referred to it about the correct interpretation and the validity of EU law. There are, however, growing indications that this procedure, which is the most important procedure of EU law, is not working optimally: national courts seem to lack the necessary knowledge of EU law or they appear simply unwilling to refer. The actual implementation of the eventual CJEU rulings is also far from ideal. If these shortcomings are not addressed, this could affect the effectiveness of EU law and even undermine the European integration project. It is thus crucial to understand why and how national courts use this procedure and engage with the CJEU with a view of finding solutions. This project therefore looks into the motives for (not) referring of judges of different courts within and across three EU Member States which have a different practice of referring: The Netherlands, Ireland and the United Kingdom. In addition, it examines what national courts in these States do after they receive the requested preliminary rulings. This project is the first comparative empirical study that analyses the motives of individual judges to refer and the follow-up of requested CJEU rulings. It applies an original methodological approach combining legal analysis of various judgments complemented with in-depth interviews with judges. The results will help to improve the use of the preliminary reference procedure and are thus relevant for the CJEU, national courts and other domestic stakeholders. This RDR contains the written summary reports of the interviews conducted with judges, law clerks and lawyers as well as the audio files (if the interviewee gave his/ her consent to be taped). In total 88 interviews were conducted: 54 in the Netherlands, 28 in Ireland and 6 in the United Kingdom.