The EU Court of Justice has put an end to the Council of State’s practice of dismissing cases in immigration law concerning the interpretation of EU law without providing reasons (the vast majority of immigration law falls under EU law).
Under EU law, specifically Article 267, paragraph 3, of the TFEU, read in light of Article 47, paragraph 2, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, the Council of State is obliged to state reasons for how EU law should be interpreted. Consequently, the Council of State cannot suffice with an unmotivated (or, as the Council of State itself states: “reasoning in a summary manner”) ruling, the so-called Article 91(2) Aliens Act ruling.
This judgment has also clarified that this duty to provide reasons is somewhat separate from the duty to provide reasons that also applies under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). For that ECHR duty to provide reasons, an explicit request for a preliminary ruling must be made, whereas this is not necessary for the EU duty to provide reasons, and the national court must, if necessary ex officio, refer the case for the interpretation of EU law, or must provide reasons why it is not referred.
Consequently, for years, the Council of State has dismissed immigration cases in which an interpretation of EU law was requested without providing reasons, contrary to the same EU law. This was done despite all the criticism regarding this subject (see, among others, my publications on this subject). With this judgment, it is clear that this criticism was not without reason and must be implemented.