Case C‑180/12

Stoilov i Ko EOOD

v

Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal basis of the decision at issue in the main proceedings no longer present — Lack of relevance of the questions asked — No need to adjudicate’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 24 October 2013

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Annulment of the decision contested in the main proceedings — Questions devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 267 TFEU)

Since an administrative notification decision of a tariff classification of certain goods was annulled in its entirety by a national supreme court and the existence of that decision is a procedural condition for the adoption of the decision to enforce recovery of public debts referred to in the notification decision, it is not necessary, for the Court, to give a ruling on questions referred relating to that classification. In the absence of any subject-matter, such a request for a preliminary ruling does not enable the factors to be discerned that are necessary for an interpretation of EU law which the national court might usefully apply in order to resolve, in accordance with that law, the dispute before it.

As regards the possibility of adopting new notification and recovery decisions, the answer to questions referred in such circumstances would amount to providing an advisory opinion on hypothetical questions in disregard of the Court’s task in the context of the judicial cooperation instituted by Article 267 TFEU.

(see paras 39, 45-47, operative part)

Case C‑180/12

Stoilov i Ko EOOD

v

Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal basis of the decision at issue in the main proceedings no longer present — Lack of relevance of the questions asked — No need to adjudicate’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 24 October 2013

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer — Annulment of the decision contested in the main proceedings — Questions devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 267 TFEU)

Since an administrative notification decision of a tariff classification of certain goods was annulled in its entirety by a national supreme court and the existence of that decision is a procedural condition for the adoption of the decision to enforce recovery of public debts referred to in the notification decision, it is not necessary, for the Court, to give a ruling on questions referred relating to that classification. In the absence of any subject-matter, such a request for a preliminary ruling does not enable the factors to be discerned that are necessary for an interpretation of EU law which the national court might usefully apply in order to resolve, in accordance with that law, the dispute before it.

As regards the possibility of adopting new notification and recovery decisions, the answer to questions referred in such circumstances would amount to providing an advisory opinion on hypothetical questions in disregard of the Court’s task in the context of the judicial cooperation instituted by Article 267 TFEU.

(see paras 39, 45-47, operative part)