Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1. Preliminary rulings - References to the Court - Need for previous inter partes hearing - Assessment by national court - Decision to refer consistent with rules of national law governing the organization of the courts and their procedure - Not for Court to determine

(EEC Treaty, Art. 177)

2. Preliminary rulings - References to the Court - Reply to question of interpretation already given in similar case - Further reference admissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 177)

3. Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Question clearly irrelevant

(EEC Treaty, Art. 177)

4. Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Discrimination between producers and consumers - Internal tax imposed on domestic products to build up a fund to promote national production - Non-reimbursement in the event of export - No discrimination

(EEC Treaty, Art. 40(3), second paragraph)

5. Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Rice - Export refunds - Internal tax imposed on rice produced in Italy to build up a fund to promote national production of rice - Non-reimbursement on export - Acceptable

(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76, Art. 17(2))

Summary

1. Although, in the context of the procedure under Article 177 of the Treaty, it may be in the interests of the proper administration of justice for a preliminary question not to be referred until after an inter partes hearing, such a requirement does not appear among the conditions for implementation of the said procedure. It is, therefore, for the national court alone to assess the need to hear the defendant before making an order for reference.

In view of the distribution of functions between the Court and the national courts, it is likewise not for the Court to determine whether the decision whereby a matter is brought before it was taken in accordance with the rules of national law governing the organization of the courts and their procedure.

2. Article 177 of the Treaty always allows a national court, if it considers it appropriate, to refer questions of interpretation to the Court again, even if they have already formed the subject of a preliminary ruling in a similar case.

3. In the context of the procedure under Article 177 of the Treaty, it is solely for the national courts before which actions are brought, and which must bear the responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the special features of each case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable them to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which they submit to the Court. Dismissal of a request from a national court is possible only if it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law or the examination of the validity of a rule of Community law sought bears no relation to the actual nature of the case or to the subject-matter of the main action.

4. The second paragraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that non-reimbursement of an internal tax imposed only on domestic products when they are purchased or processed and which is intended to build up a fund to promote national production does not, where those products are exported, create discrimination against the traders who bear the burden of the charge, in so far as those traders, unlike those who obtain their supplies on another market, benefit from a number of services of which the said tax forms the counterpart.

5. Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1418/76 on the common organization of the market in rice, which concerns export refunds, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude non-reimbursement to the exporter of the rice of an internal tax imposed only on rice produced in the State in question when it is purchased or processed and which is intended to build up a fund to promote national production, in so far as the tax in question, which has no connection with export refunds or the amount of those refunds, has no direct bearing on the working of the mechanisms provided for by the abovementioned Regulation and does not, therefore, appear to be a means of reducing the amount of those refunds.