I was belatedly informed about the organization of a scientific event on 15 March by the University of Athens, Judicial Associations and the Union of European Scholars on the theme “European Law and Greek Justice: A Necessary Dialogue”. It is known that this dialogue takes place through the so-called “pre-trial referral”, i.e. mechanism that allows national judges to refer to Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and raise questions about the interpretation and validity of Union legislation.

I decided to write this comment for two reasons. Firstly, it so happened that a few days before the event, namely on March 3, the official CJEU statistics for 2022 were published, revealing the exact dimensions of the “necessary” nature of the dialogue between the Greek judges and the CJEU. . Out of 546 pre-trial referrals registered in 2022, only 4(!) came from Greek courts. This image is, to put it mildly, disappointing for a country that we hope has completed its 42-year stay in the European Union. It is enough to look at the speeches of other Member States and compare them from any point of view with ours. At the forefront is Germany with 98 referrals, followed by Italy with 63, Bulgaria (!) with 43, Spain with 41, Poland with 39, and correspondingly low levels with Greece, for example. Denmark, Estonia, Latvia and, to an even lesser extent, Sweden with two directions.

But even if we include the population factor, the comparison between countries with the same population as Greece is negative: we note that 34 destinations come from Austria, Belgium 30, Portugal 28, Hungary 20 and the Czech Republic 13. The same applies , if we use the criterion of “ancient” member states of the Union in the sense that older states have less need to turn to the EU for assistance. We see the opposite happening, as Germany, Italy and Belgium have already been mentioned among the founding members, which have a large number of referrals, leaving the Netherlands with 28 referrals, France with 23 and Luxembourg with 2 referrals.

The use of numbers and statistics will be refuted by the argument that quantity does not necessarily mean the quality of the dialogue. This may have some basis, however, when the numbers are not so small and therefore leave room for a significant evaluation of “Greek” references. With one question per quarter, you do not contribute to the correct interpretation and application of European Union law.

The second reason for my intervention is related to the recent publication of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Georgiou v. Greece, which is indeed a bottleneck for our country. Greece has been severely condemned by the Strasbourg Court for violating the right to a fair trial, as the Supreme Court, as the highest court, refused – indeed without justification – to submit a preliminary question to the Luxembourg Court to interpret the case-critical and criminal convictions of former ELSTAT President Andreas Georgiou provisions of the European Statistics Code of Good Practice. It is worth noting that the ECtHR, in justifying the applicant, explicitly called on the Greek authorities to restore the violated legality and ensure that, under the new procedure, the Supreme Court considers the application of Mr. Georgiou for a pre-trial referral of the case to the CJEU. .

And if all of the above is not enough, there are other arguments that demonstrate how important it is for Greek courts to continue pre-trial appeals to the CJEU. Firstly, I cannot imagine that in only four cases important issues of EU law were raised that required the use of a link. Secondly – and more importantly – it must be made clear that, through pre-trial proceedings, national judges can influence the interpretation and application of EU law through the positions they will express in their case decisions. The role of the national judge in the context of a well-organized dialogue with the CJEU is not passive, but essential, since the Luxembourg Court itself calls on national courts not only to raise questions about the interpretation of EU law and the validity of the acts of EU institutions, but also to offer their own answer, which, of course, is not binding for CEC, but taken into account. This is how conditions are created for the national judge to contribute with his thoughts to the very formation of EU law.

If it is true what my dear friend and honorary President of the Council of State said ten years ago, namely that the Greek judges felt safe during my (long) presidency of the CJEU, I assure them that they can feel the same security today. Moreover, they should not forget that there are currently two former members of the State Council working in the EU who are well aware of any concerns of their Greek counterparts. Therefore, there are no grounds for an extremely cautious attitude of our judges towards the institution of pre-trial referral.

Therefore, the discussion about the necessary dialogue between Greek justice and European law is a “friend”, and the proof that our judges are aware of the serious obligations that pre-trial appeals to the CJEU entails and the great opportunities that a pre-trial application to the CJEU provides is a “filter”. .

In other words, it is certainly right and useful to conduct scientific activities like the one that this comment gave rise to. It is enough that we again do not stick to the words, but let the actions follow.

* Mr. Vassilis Skouris is a former President of the Court of Justice of the European Union. (2003-2015).