Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 November 2020 – Colt Technology Services and Others

(Case C‑318/20) ( 1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principle of non‑discrimination on grounds of nationality – National legislation on pricing of interception activities ordered by judicial authorities – Failure to take into account the principle of full reimbursement of the costs of telecommunications operators – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory framework of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility)

1.	Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred – Assessment by the national court – Presumption of relevance of the questions referred (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 12-14)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer – Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 53(2) and 94)

(see paras 15-17, 20, 21, 23, 24, operative part)

3.	Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context – Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition (267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see para. 22)

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), by decision of 13 February 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

( 1 ) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.