UPC-Court of Appeal: Procedural decision on an application for a CJEU preliminary ruling

A need for interpretation of EU law in the context of application of the UPCA and/or the RoP can arise when, for instance, a provision of the UPCA or the RoP implements or relates to a directive, a regulation, or to an international agreement such as the Lugano Convention where the EU is a contracting party, whether the UPCA and/or the RoP make specific reference thereto or not. Similarly, if the UPC applies EU law, questions of interpretation of EU law can come into play. The UPC must interpret its own substantive and procedural law in a manner that is consistent with EU law, and in the rare cases when such interpretation is impossible, ultimately disapply, of its own motion, any rule or practice, which is contrary to a provision of EU law with direct effect. This obligation can open up questions on interpretation of EU law. By contrast, the UPC cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the UPCA. As is clear from a reading of the case-law of the CJEU, the UPCA is an international agreement. It forms part of international law. It also results from EU law that the UPC cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the RoP. There is no need for a preliminary ruling where established case-law of the CJEU already resolves the point of law in question. The same applies where there is no scope for any reasonable doubt about the application of the principles (UPC 20.8.2025; CoA 380/2025).