The Court of Justice can rephrase or otherwise depart from the questions referred to it by national courts under Article 267 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. It does so routinely: a practice known as reformulation. Legal literature often argues that reformulation is used to clarify national court questions and bring them within the scope of European Union law. The aim of the present article is to explore this claim systematically. To this end, it compiles a unique dataset consisting of the Orders for Reference, in which the referring courts embed the preliminary questions, and the judgments, in which the Court of Justice communicates the answers. The findings suggest that reformulation is a decision‐making approach rather than a fixture of decision writing. It's main function is to neutralize conflicts and Europeanise disputes. It underlines the Court's power to shape the preliminary ruling procedure and its outcomes

中文翻译：

---

“转介法院本质上是在问”：法院对初步问题的重新表述是决定书写工具还是决策方法？

法院可以改写或以其他方式脱离国家法院根据《欧盟运作条约》第 267 条提交给它的问题。它经常这样做：一种称为重新制定的做法。法律文献经常争辩说，重新制定用于澄清国家法院问题并将其纳入欧盟法律的范围内。本文的目的是系统地探讨这一主张。为此，它编制了一个独特的数据集，其中包括参考命令（参考法院在其中嵌入初步问题）和判决（法院在其中传达答案）。研究结果表明，重新制定是一种决策方法，而不是决策制定的固定手段。它' 它的主要功能是化解冲突和欧洲化争端。它强调了法院塑造初步裁决程序及其结果的权力