The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled Thursday that national procedural rules cannot obstruct a judge's path to seeking a preliminary ruling from Luxembourg, handing down judgment in the Petlichev case. The decision binds every member state and reaffirms that ordinary judges must set aside rulings of higher national courts — including constitutional tribunals — when those rulings conflict with EU law.

The ruling arose from a drug-trafficking prosecution in Sofia. A defendant identified as M.A. faced charges for possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl with intent to distribute. Under Bulgarian law, the seriousness of the offense hinged on the monetary value assigned to the seized narcotics, a figure set administratively. The trial panel questioned whether tying criminal punishment to an administratively set price satisfied the proportionality principle under both Bulgaria's constitution and EU law.

What did Bulgaria's procedural rule require?

Bulgarian law compels a trial judge, before challenging a statute before the Constitutional Court in a case touching EU law, to spell out in detail how EU law applies to the dispute. The Sofia panel feared the requirement could create a bottleneck, forcing judges to resolve EU-law questions before they could trigger constitutional review.

The CJEU drew a careful distinction. A reasoned explanation may be required. A rule that deters or delays a reference is not permissible.

What did the CJEU decide?

The Luxembourg judges held in unequivocal terms that national courts "must therefore, if necessary, disregard the rulings of a higher national court if it considers, having regard to the interpretation provided by the court, that they are not consistent with EU law, if necessary refusing to apply the national rule requiring it to comply with the decisions of that higher court."

That phrasing reaches beyond Bulgaria. It tells every last-instance national court that its rulings are subordinate to the CJEU on EU-law questions.

The court also stressed the obligation resting on "national courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law" to seek a preliminary ruling, framing that duty as essential to "the proper application and uniform interpretation of EU law in all the member states."

Why does the timing matter?

The judgment lands amid sustained friction between several constitutional courts and the EU's highest tribunal. Poland's Constitutional Tribunal ruled in 2021 that parts of the EU treaties conflicted with the Polish Constitution, openly challenging primacy and triggering infringement proceedings and funding disputes. Hungary has clashed repeatedly with the European Commission over judicial independence, asylum policy and rule-of-law reforms, producing multiple judgments and billions in withheld funds.

Bulgaria has not staged that kind of showdown. In 2024, its Constitutional Court struck down key judicial reforms that would have reshaped the Supreme Judicial Council and curbed the prosecutor general — changes Brussels had monitored closely. The Commission separately opened infringement proceedings (IP/24/3765) over delays in implementing criminal-procedure safeguards.

Against that backdrop, the CJEU chose measured language. It sent the drug case back to Sofia with instructions on applying EU law but did not invalidate the Bulgarian procedural rule outright.

What did outside observers say?

Laurent Pech, professor of European law and dean of the Sutherland School of Law at University College Dublin, called the ruling "unusually generous regarding a very specific Bulgarian procedural rule." Pech noted the court "has had to confront direct and more subtle challenges to its jurisdiction and its rule-of-law-related case law," including from constitutional courts deployed "to shield authorities from European law and sideline ordinary judges."

For Pech, the core principle remains firm: national courts cannot be forced to take the constitutional path first when they doubt a law under EU rules, and "any national rule which may directly or indirectly dissuade a national court to refer questions of EU law to the Court of Justice is not compatible" with the treaty framework. Constitutional courts themselves, he added, are bound to give effect to preliminary rulings.

What changes for practitioners?

Bulgarian judges and prosecutors working on cross-border or EU-law-touching criminal cases gain clear marching orders. A pre-reference explanation may be required, but any step that delays or blocks access to Luxembourg is out of bounds. Last-instance courts anywhere in the bloc now operate on notice: a refusal to apply a CJEU preliminary ruling does not bind the trial bench.

The Bulgarian Constitutional Court had no immediate comment on the judgment. The preliminary ruling is binding. No appeal lies from it.