EU law.’LXIII Advocate General Whal opinion that the Court of Justice´s rulings on its lack of jurisdiction to review bailout instruments were prompt by a failure of individuals and national courts to explain the applicability of the Charter to national austerity measures, is much too deferential to the Court of Justice.LXIV The latter should have ex officio redrafted the questions submitted by Portuguese courts in Fidelidade Mundial and in Via Directa. Given the importance of these preliminary references – they addressed measures that seriously affected the lives of millions –, the restrictive approach to admissibility adopted in these cases conflicts with the role of the Luxembourg court as the constitutional guardian of the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU. 5.3. The Portuguese Constitutional Court emerged during the financial crisis as a key player in the domestic political system when it had to address the compatibility with the Constitution of legislative acts that established all sorts of austerity measures. After the decision on the State Budget for 2012 (Case 353/2012), the Court was even identified as a sort of “Don Quixote fighting the windmills of austerity” when it rejected the suspension of two months of salary allowances for public servants and pensioners based on the violation of the principle of equality (Article 13 of the Constitution).LXV Such an image is completely at odds with the fact that from the outset of the crisis, the Portuguese Constitutional Court made every effort to internalise the European and international obligations of the Portuguese State. In case 396/2011 (21 September 2011) (State Budget 2011) it declared that the austerity measures were important to enforce the Growth and Stability Pact obligations. In case 353/2012 (5 July 2012) (State Budget 2012)LXVI and in case 187/2013 (5 April 2013) (State Budget 2013) it recognised that the memoranda signed by the Portuguese Government with international and European institutions were legally binding to the extent that they were based on international law and EU law instruments. In case 602/2013 (20 September 2013) (Labour Code) and in case 794/2013 (40-Hour work week) it went through a detailed examination on how the provisions under review were a result of a direct transposition of the MoU into national law. In case 862/2013 (19 December 2013) (Pensions convergence) it declared that the permanent cuts in pensions proposed by the government were broader than those inserted Except where otherwise noted content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 Italy License E -123