Information Note on the Court’s case-law 35

October 2001

Canela Santiago v. Spain (dec.) - 60350/00

Decision 4.10.2001 [Section IV]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Fair hearing

Refusal of Supreme Court to submit a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice: inadmissible

The applicant is a customs agent. Since 1 January 1993, pursuant to European Community legislation, goods exported from Spain to other member States of the European Union or imported from those States to Spain have no longer had to pass through Spanish State customs. The applicant considered that the entry into force of the provisions in question had caused him substantial pecuni ary damage, as there had been a significant decline in his customs-clearance business; he consequently brought an action for damages in the administrative courts. He requested the Supreme Court to stay its decision on the merits and, on the basis of Articl e 177 of the EEC Treaty, to refer a question concerning the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3904/92 of 17 December 1992 on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the internal market to the Court of Justice of the European Commu nities for a preliminary ruling. In a judgment of July 1999 the Supreme Court rejected his request to refer the question for a preliminary ruling and, dealing with the merits of the case, dismissed his application. It drew attention to the Court of Justice ’s case-law concerning the referral of questions for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, and, in particular, to the fact that the obligation to refer a question was not an absolute one if there was no doubt as to what the reply would be. In the instant case the Supreme Court held, in a reasoned decision, that the applicant’s questions did not directly concern the interpretation of Council Regulation No. 3904/92 but fell within its own jurisdiction. In February 2000 the Constitutional C ourt dismissed as ill-founded an amparo appeal by the applicant.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: In its judgment the Supreme Court had set out its reasons for holding that the applicant’s questions had not directly concerned the interpretation of Council Regulation No. 3904/92 but had fallen within its own jurisdiction. Accordingly, its refusal to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling could not be regarded as arbitrary: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes