The Court of Justice’s judgment of 20 September 2018 in C-343/17 concerned the admissibility of a reference arising from a Belgian land pre-emption dispute.
Archive article, reviewed and updated on 12 November 2026. The original publication date is retained.
What the Court decided
The reference did not establish the necessary connection between the wholly domestic dispute and the EU provisions for which interpretation was requested. The Court held the reference inadmissible. This was not a general ruling approving or prohibiting all local pre-emption or housing-allocation rules.
Why the procedural point matters
A party relying on EU fundamental freedoms must identify the relevant legal and factual connection. National planning, property and procedural questions remain important even where an EU argument is proposed.
Four practical examples
Illustrative scenarios: the appropriate steps depend on the contract, evidence and applicable law. These are not reports of client matters.
A domestic land sale
Identify whether the facts support the EU provision relied on.
An overseas purchaser
Document the actual cross-border element rather than invoking it abstractly.
A pre-emption notice
Assess national deadlines independently of a proposed EU argument.
A preliminary reference request
Explain why the EU interpretation is needed to decide the dispute.
Further guidance
Legal framework & further reading
Reviewed: 12 November 2026. Statutory references are to German law unless stated otherwise.