The Doctrine of Acte Clair in the Context of National Courts Research Paper

The Doctrine of Acte Clair in the Context of National Courts - Research Paper display caseA theme court can ask the CJ questions pertaining to the interpretation of the EU charter. It can also ask the CJ to give rulings on the interpretation of the Treaty and Acts of the EU institutions. The CJ can be asked questions on the validity of Acts of the EU institutions - not on the validity of the Treaty through, or be asked to give rulings on such Acts. In practice, as only the CJ can rule on the invalidity of EU law, any such question must be referred to it by the concerned national court. This function of the CJ is enshrined in the EU charter. Art 256(3) TFEU (Art 225(3)EC Art 168(a) EEC) specifies the General courts authority that it shall have the jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Art 267 TFEU, in specific areas Moreover, CJ can only interpret EU law. It cannot interpret national law nor pass comment on the compatibility of nationa l law with EU law. A good example can be found in the case of 6/64 Costa v ENEL 1964 ECR 585. If CJ is asked a question raising the compatibility of national law with EU law, it has the duty to reformulate the question into one just of EU law see eg26/62 Van Gend en Loos 1963 ECR 1. In C221/89 ex p Factortame 1992 QB 680. Nevertheless, even though expressed in abstract terms, the CJ gives a clear ruling that UK law is incompatible with EU law. Additionally, the CJ can only rule on the interpretation of EU law, not on the application of it by the national court in the particular case. However, often the guidance given by the CJ is so specific that it equates to the application, for example as seen in C392/93 R v HM exchequer ex p BT1996 ECR I 1631.