Why passive? Exploring national judges’ motives for not requesting preliminary rulings

This article explores why national judges remain passive on EU legal integration by examining judges’ reasons for not requesting preliminary rulings from the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The combines insights social psychology and literature role courts in to formulate expectations regarding what type motives guide behaviours. Drawing interviews held with Croatian, Slovenian Swedish judges, our results reveal three shared passive: referrals are required formal rules (procedural normative motivation), made protect parties case (substantive motivation) reputations (instrumental motivation). In addition, we unveil that only one or two Member States, such as referring cases uphold capacity ruling procedure (Swedish judges) due a fear sanctions lack knowledge resources (Croatian judges). We discuss these similarities divergences light theoretical discussion active actors integration.