Umeå universitets logga

This article examines how Swedish courts justify decisions not to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It is based on an analysis of 668 non-referral decisions across all court types and levels. By identifying the reasons provided, this article evaluates the explanations judges consider legitimate for nonreferral, and compares these with the legal obligation to give reasons. The findings reveal a nuanced picture of how Swedish courts approach reasons-giving within the preliminary ruling procedure (PRP), highlighting both commendable and questionable practices. Courts of last instance predominantly rely on the CILFIT exceptions, particularly the irrelevance of EU law, followed by acte éclairé, while acte clair is used only infrequently. Lower courts commonly resort to vague formulations such as “no reason to refer”. Such minimal reasoning may reflect reluctance to engage with the PRP, thought it may also stem from legalistic considerations. In any event, a few more words explaining why no questions were sent could go a long way in building trust in how the Swedish judiciary handle the PRP, both from the perspective of the parties and the Union legal order.