Keywords
Summary

Keywords

Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Questions submitted in a context precluding a useful answer — Question based on a hypothetical interpretation of a national law other than the national court's own law — Question inadmissible unless there is a specific statement of reasons — (Art. 234 EC)

Summary

In the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts established by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted by the national court concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling.

However, in exceptional circumstances, the court can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court can decline to give a ruling where, for example, the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a helpful answer to the questions submitted to it. Moreover, in order to enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law, it is essential for the national court to explain why it considers that an answer to its questions is necessary for resolving the dispute.

Where the relevance of questions referred for a preliminary ruling rests on a particular interpretation of a national law other than the national court's own law, in relation to which the interpretation chosen by it is hypothetical, it is particularly necessary to state the grounds for the order for reference on that point. Accordingly such questions are inadmissible in so far as the national court does not explain why it considers the interpretation on which it relies to be the only one possible.

see paras 31-34, 37-40