The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the judicial institution of the European Union. Its role is to ensure that European law  is interpreted and applied in a uniform manner and that EU countries and EU institutions comply with EU law. Despite its relevance in the context of EU legislation, individual complaints to the CJEU are rare. You can take action directly before the CJEU, for example, when an EU institution’s decision has affected you personally and directly, but the most common ways for an individual to reach the CJEU are indirectly:

• When an individual brings a case to a national court and questions arise about the interpretation of relevant EU legislation (Preliminary Ruling). Referring the matter to the CJEU is a prerogative of the court, not the individual concerned.

When an individual notifies the Commission about the failure to comply with EU legislation by a Member State, the Commission can go as far as bringing the Member State to the CJEU

The CJEU mainly gives its ruling when the following cases arise:

• Interpretation of Law: when national courts have a doubt about the interpretation or validity of EU law or the compatibility of national law with EU law, they can ask the CJEU for clarification. The response given by the CJEU is called ‘Preliminary Ruling’ and the national court must apply it to the case concerned.
• Enforcement of Law: when a national government fails to comply with EU law, the European Commission or another EU country can take the case to the CJEU. The European Commission will take a Member State to the CJEU if the infringement procedure has failed (see Part 1 of the toolkit).
• Annulment of EU Legal Acts: if an EU legal Act contradicts EU treaties or fundamental rights, an EU Government, the Council of the EU, the European Commission or the European Parliament can ask the court to withdraw it. Individuals can only do it when the EU act is directly addressed to them (like Administrative Decisions or Sanctions) or can prove that concerns them directly and individually.
• Actions for failure to act: when the Parliament, the Council or the European Commission do not take the actions they are obliged to take, EU Governments or other Institutions can bring the matter to the Court. Individuals and companies can only do it where the body concerned should have addressed an act specifically to them. And before they do it, first they must call on the relevant body to act.
• Actions for Damages: if the action or inaction of the EU has harmed the interest of a person or a company, they can take the case to the CJEU. Three criteria have to be met for EU liability to exist: 1) an illegal act by an EU institution or body, 2) actual damage and 3) casual relation between the illegal act and the damage.

• Preliminary ruling on employment discrimination: in 2017 a hard of hearing worker of an Estonian prison was dismissed based on national regulations that prohibited the employment of persons whose hearing acuity does not meet minimum sound perception thresholds. The person concerned initiated judicial proceedings that made it to the Estonia Supreme Court. In order to check the validity of the national regulations applied for such dismissal with the Constitution and EU law, the supreme court referred a question to the CJEU. In a preliminary ruling of 2021, the CJEU ruled that Estonian regulations where contrary to Directive 2000/78 on equal treatment in employment (more information on the employment discrimination case in Estonia).
• Annulment of EU legal acts on institutionalisation: in 2019, the European Network for Independent Living (ENIL) and two other disability rights organisations challenged the use of European funds to build institutions in Bulgaria. The applicants wanted the CJEU to stop the disbursement of such funds (which the Commission refused to do). Unfortunately, the Court considered that the action for annulment requested by the disability organisations was inadmissible. The main reason, according to the CJEU was that the appellants were not directly concerned, as they were not directly beneficiaries of financial assistance, nor would they be liable for any payment of recovered fund. Although the action was not successful, is a good example of how citizens can reach the CJEU beyond the pre-judicial questions submitted by national courts[1]