Obligation to refer or to state reasons for non-referral under Article 267(3) TFEUFajdiga, Mohor (Avtor) C-144/23 KUBERACILFIT criteriaduty to state reasons for refusing an application for leave to appealnational filtering mechanismsscope of the obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267(3) TFEUDéjà vu: the CJEU rejects the Advocate General’s proposal to revisit the contested CILFIT doctrine. Instead, it confirms its position from C-152/17, Consorzio, that courts of last instance are required to provide reasons for not making a reference under Article 267(3) TFEU. This judgment extends that duty to the context of national filtering mechanisms for accessing apex courts, such as the Slovenian leave to appeal system examined in this case. The ruling imposes a far-reaching obligation under Article 267(3), one that may risk undermining the legitimate goals of national filtering systems. As the aftermath in Slovenia illustrates, national courts are likely to grapple with the implications of this decision. Nevertheless, they remain largely unrestrained in how they exercise their duty under Article 267(3), which suggests that the obligation to provide reasons functions more as an encouragement for careful consideration than as a justiciable standard subject to external review.20262026-07-15 14:15:09Članek v reviji184825UDK: 341.645:347.992(4-6EU)ISSN pri članku: 2956-8161DOI: 10.26881/gsp.2026.2.17COBISS_ID: 284921603slLicenca Creative Commons je navedena na pristajalni strani članka (glej izvorni URL): The journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). (Datum opombe 15. 7. 2026)