Het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie heeft baanbrekende uitspraken gedaan, vooral als gevolg van prejudiciële vragen van nationale rechters op grond van art. 267 VWEU. Het zijn vooral niet-verwijzingsplichtige lagere rechters geweest die voor deze aanvoer hebben gezorgd. Dit artikel onderzoekt hoe dit kan worden verklaard en kijkt naar de motieven van Nederlandse lagere rechters om al dan niet prejudiciële vragen te stellen aan het HvJ. Het doet dit op basis van interviews met 22 rechters en een uitgebreide juridische analyse van uitspraken. Dit artikel toont aan dat met name pragmatische en praktische overwegingen een rol spelen bij het besluit om te verwijzen. Daarnaast laat dit artikel zien dat er meer verschillen zijn binnen een lidstaat dan tussen lidstaten onderling, met name tussen gerechtelijke instanties en individuele rechters.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has rendered landmark cases, especially following references for a preliminary ruling from national courts on the basis of Art. 267 TFEU. Primarily lower courts that are not obliged to refer have been responsible for such cases. This article examines how these references of lower courts can be explained by focusing on the motives of the Dutch lower court judges to refer, or not to refer. It does so on the basis of interviews with 22 judges and an extensive legal analysis of judgments. This article shows that practical and pragmatic considerations play an important role in the court’s decision to refer. In addition, there are more differences within one Member States than between EU Member States, especially between particular courts and individual judges.

This article gives an interpretation of the empirical work of the well-known sociologist of law Erhard Blankenburg, who passed away in the Spring of 2018. He conducted interesting and intelligent research on the process of ‘mobilization of law’. The thesis of this article is that Blankenburg’s empirical approach is actually guided and stimulated by normative considerations. A complete and coherent picture of the concrete utilization of legal instruments shows that ‘alternative’ ways of dealing with problems and disputes are often morally preferable as they are inspired by a realistic assessment of persons-in-a-social-context.

Companies fined for infringing the cartel prohibition are denied access to the courts until the competition authority has reviewed its fining decision in the objection procedure. Several stakeholders have been negative about the functioning of this objection procedure in case of cartel fines, including because of its limited ability to resolve disputes and the cost and length of the procedure. In light of the discussions on the effectiveness of this objection procedure, this article analyses the ability of the cartel objection procedure to resolve disputes on basis of an analysis of the decisions on objection, as well as interviews with the parties involved in the objection procedure and a study of relevant literature. Previous studies have shown that the success of the objection procedure, regarding dispute resolution, depends on the nature of the dispute, the reason that the objection is made and the organisation of the procedure. Reviewing the data which was gathered through the interviews and case analysis with the knowledge of these factors influencing the success of the objection procedure, the article concludes that these previously carried out studies can explain the limited ability of the cartel objection procedure to resolve disputes.