1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Identification of the object of the question
(Art. 234 EC)
2. Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Limits – Obviously irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions asked in a context which precludes any useful answer
(Art. 234 EC)
3. International agreements – Cooperation Agreement between the EEC and the member countries of the Cartagena Agreement – Most-favoured-nation clause – Direct effect – None
(Cooperation Agreement between the EEC and the member countries of the Cartagena Agreement, Art. 4; Council Regulation No 1591/84)
1. Although the Court has no jurisdiction under Article 234 EC to apply a rule of Community law to a particular case and thus to judge a provision of national law by reference to such a rule, it may none the less, within the framework of the judicial cooperation provided for by that article and on the basis of the material presented to it, provide the national court with an interpretation of Community law which may be useful to it in assessing the effects of that provision.
(see para. 24)
2. Questions on the interpretation of Community law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to verify, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court can decline to rule on a reference for a preliminary ruling from a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or to its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.
(see para. 27)
3. Article 4 of the Cooperation Agreement concluded between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof – Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela – of the other part, and approved by Regulation No 1591/84, a provision which lays down most-favoured-nation treatment between the contracting parties, is not such as to confer on individuals rights upon which they might rely before the courts of a Member State.
The interpretation adopted by the Court in the judgment in Case C-377/02 Van Parys as to the lack of direct effect of the most-favoured-nation clause in the Framework Agreement on Cooperation between the European Economic Community and the Cartagena Agreement and its member countries, namely Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 98/278, an agreement which succeeded the Cooperation Agreement, is also valid in relation to Article 4 of the Cooperation Agreement. Whilst it is true that the most-favoured-nation clause as set out in the Framework Agreement on Cooperation is couched in terms that diverge from those of the most-favoured-nation clause in the Cooperation Agreement, the fact that the latter is drafted differently can be considered a factor requiring a divergent interpretation as regards its possible direct effect only in so far as the general scheme of the agreements and their aims show that the contracting parties intended, by the difference in drafting, to deny Article 4 of the Framework Agreement on Cooperation direct effect previously accorded to Article 4 of the Cooperation Agreement.
However, the Framework Agreement on Cooperation, in particular Article 4 thereof, does not display characteristics showing the contracting parties to be placed in a less favourable position compared with the position that they had under the Cooperation Agreement, in particular in relation to the clause providing for most-favoured-nation treatment. On the contrary, comparison of the two agreements reveals a gradual strengthening in the intensity of the cooperation to which the parties committed themselves.
(see paras 38-39, 42, 44-45, operative part)