La relación entre la cuestión prejudicial y la cuestión de inconstitucionalidad

This article analyses the relationship between the preliminary ruling procedure before the CJUE and the interlocutory procedures for the review of constitutionality in several Member States, with a focus on the Spanish system, in those cases where the two incidents have their origin in the same ju...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cruz Villalón, Pedro, Requejo Pagés, Juan Luis
Format: Article
Language:Spanish
Published: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales 2015
Subjects:
Cuestión prejudicial
Artículo 267 TFUE
Cuestión de inconstitucionalidad
Artículo 163 CE
Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea
Tribunal Constitucional
Procedimientos de control normativo incidental: cuestión prioritaria de constitucionalidad
Condiciones de planteamiento de la cuestión prejudicial
Condiciones de planteamiento de la cuestión de inconstitucionalidad
Tutela judicial
Derecho a un proceso sin dilaciones
Reference for a preliminary ruling
Article 267 TFUE
Interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality
Article 163 SC
Court of Justice of the European Union
Constitutional Court
Proceedings of preliminary normative control
Priority question on constitutionality
Conditions for the submission of a reference for a preliminary ruling
Conditions for the submission of a question on constitutionality
Right to an effective judicial remedy
Right to a process within a reasonable time
Online Access:https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5074237
Source:Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, ISSN 1138-4026, Año nº 19, Nº 50, 2015, pags. 173-194
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
La relación entre la cuestión prejudicial y la cuestión de inconstitucionalidad
Summary: This article analyses the relationship between the preliminary ruling procedure before the CJUE and the interlocutory procedures for the review of constitutionality in several Member States, with a focus on the Spanish system, in those cases where the two incidents have their origin in the same judicial proceedings. For this purpose, we examine the reasons of principle which, according to the respective legal systems, justify the priority of each of these mechanisms of interlocutory normative control. Acknowledging the difficulty to arrive at an entirely satisfactory solution from the perspective of both systems, this article draws attention to another interest that is often insufficiently taken into account: that of the litigants themselves. In this connection, and with the aim of preventing undue delay, we point to the possibility for the judge to abandon, as far as possible, the criterion of temporal succession, and instead, to operate under a criterion of simultaneity.

Similar Items