This commentary offers an analysis of the Petlichev ruling. In particular, it is argued that the Court of Justice sought to address two distinct actors: first, constitutional courts; and second, ordinary judges. Indeed, the Court of Justice reminded the former that they are part of the EU judicial system and, as such, are required to engage in dialogue with the Luxembourg pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU. To the latter, however, the Court of Justice notes that the alleged unconstitutionality of the provision does not affect the preliminary ruling procedure. An element of innovation can certainly be found in the characterization of constitutional courts as courts of last resort (Article 267(3) TFEU): and it is precisely this passage that reveals the difficulties of classifying constitutional courts within that category.
