If a national court refuses to refer to the EU Court, it must explain the reasons — ECHR

The European Court of Human Rights examined a case regarding the obligation of national courts to properly justify the refusal to refer to the Court of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. The Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial includes not only access to a court and the hearing of a case by an independent tribunal but also the obligation of judicial authorities to provide sufficient grounds for their procedural decisions.

In the decision in the case of GONDERT v. Germany, the ECHR concluded that the absence of a reasoned response to a clear request by a party to refer to the CJEU may indicate a violation of the guarantees provided by Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Circumstances of case No. 34701/21

The case concerned proceedings in which the national court did not refer to the Court of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.

The applicant in the case is Heinz-Günter Gondert, a German citizen born in 1949 and residing in the city of Bingen (Germany). Mr. Gondert was a partner in the German office of an international law firm headquartered in the United Kingdom until his retirement in 2014.

In February 2014, he filed a lawsuit against the law firm regarding its pension scheme, claiming that his position differed from that of younger partners. In April 2014, the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main ruled in favor of the applicant and held that such differential treatment could not be justified.

However, in June 2016, the Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal overturned this decision and dismissed the claim. The court found that the applicant had been subjected to less favorable treatment compared to partners born after April 1950 but concluded that such differential treatment was justified under EU law. The Court of Appeal refused the applicant permission to appeal on points of law.

The applicant lodged a complaint against this refusal with the Federal Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had not referred a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of the European Union and asked the Federal Court to make such a referral. The Federal Court refused the applicant permission to lodge a cassation appeal, stating in its brief reasoning that there were no grounds for admitting the cassation appeal and that it had considered the question of the obligation to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

The Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept the applicant's constitutional complaint for consideration without providing reasons.

ECHR Assessment

First, the Court recalled that although national courts have the authority to interpret and apply national law and decide whether a referral for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU is necessary, refusal to make such a referral under certain circumstances may violate the fairness of the proceedings.

The obligation of national courts to justify their decisions and rulings aims to ensure that parties can understand the content and grounds of the judicial act adopted, which is an important safeguard against arbitrariness. Moreover, it aims to demonstrate to the parties that they have been heard, thereby promoting a more voluntary acceptance of the respective decision.

The Court noted that when a party requested a national court, whose decisions were not subject to further appeal, to refer a question for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU, and that court refused such a referral, it was required to provide reasons for that refusal in accordance with CJEU practice.

The ECHR found that national courts did not provide grounds for refusing to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling despite the precise request and detailed arguments on the matter. In its refusal to grant permission to appeal on points of law, the Federal Court stated that it had considered whether it was obliged to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling but did not specify the reasons why it considered such a referral unnecessary. Furthermore, the Federal Court did not indicate, according to the CILFIT criteria, whether it considered the questions raised by the applicant irrelevant, whether the relevant EU provision had already been interpreted by the CJEU, or whether the correct application of EU law was so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, there was a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

Conclusion

Violation of Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial). The decision in this case was made by the Chamber on December 16, 2025, and will become final pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 44 of the Convention.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.