61994O0167

++++

1. Preliminary rulings ° Jurisdiction of the Court ° Interpretation of Article B of the Treaty on European Union ° Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; Treaty on European Union, Arts B and L)

2. Preliminary rulings ° Admissibility of reference ° Submission of a question without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

1. By virtue of Article L of the Treaty on European Union, the Court clearly has no jurisdiction to interpret Article B of that Treaty in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling.

2. In view of the need to arrive at an interpretation of Community law which will be helpful to the national court, it is necessary for that court to define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual premisses on which those questions are based.

Furthermore, it is essential that the national court should give at the very least some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions of which it requests an interpretation and on the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute.

The information provided in decisions making references to satisfy those requirements serves not only to enable the Court to give helpful answers but also to enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court.

In Case C-167/94,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Juzgado de Instrucción de Sueca, Valencia (Spain), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against

Juan Carlos Grau Gomis and Others,

on the interpretation of Articles 2, 3(a), (b), (f) and (h), 3a(1), 8b, 9,35, 36, 37(1), 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty, on the interpretation of Articles 2, 9, 35 and 51 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal and the Adjustments of the Treaties of 12 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 302, p. 23), and on the interpretation of Article B of the Treaty on European Union,

THE COURT,

composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, F.A. Schockweiler, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, C.N. Kakouris, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Cosmas,

Registrar: R. Grass,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1 By order of 18 May 1994, received at the Court on 20 June 1994, the Juzgado de Instrucción (Local Criminal Court), Sueca, Valencia (Spain), referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty several questions on the interpretation of Articles 2, 3(a), (b), (f) and (h), 3a(1), 8b, 9, 35, 36, 37(1), 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty, on the interpretation of Articles 2, 9, 35 and 51 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal and the Adjustments of the Treaties of 12 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 302, p. 23), and on the interpretation of Article B of the Treaty on European Union.

2 Criminal proceedings were pending before the Juzgado de Instrucción against Juan Carlos Grau Gomis and six other persons accused of smuggling tobacco coming inter alia from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Andorra and Gibraltar which was to be sold in Spain and Africa.

3 Since the national court was uncertain as to the interpretation of the abovementioned articles and as to whether certain national provisions were compatible with them, in particular Ley Orgánica (Organic Law) 7/82 of 13 July 1982 on contraband offences, it referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

"This court resolves that it must request the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of:

1) Articles 2, 3(a), (b), (f) and (h), 9, 35, 36, 37(1), 86 and 90 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities, signed in Rome on 25 March 1957.

2) Articles 2, 9, 35 and 51 of the Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Portugal to the European Communities, signed in Madrid and Lisbon on 12 June 1985.

3) Article 3a(1), the first paragraph of Article B and Article 8b of the Treaty on European Union, signed in Maastricht on 7 February 1992.

4) All the above in relation to Ley Orgánica 7/82 sobre Delitos de Contrabando (Organic Law on Contraband Offences), specifically Articles 1(3) and 3(1) and (2); and the validity of measures adopted pursuant thereto".

4 It is settled case-law that, in the context of proceedings instituted under Article 177 of the Treaty, the Court has no jurisdiction to decide whether a national provision is compatible with Community law. In so far as the fourth question concerns the compatibility of the Spanish Law with Community law, the Court has no jurisdiction to reply to it. In as much as it concerns the interpretation of Community law, the fourth question is related to the first three questions.

5 As regards the third question, the Court would observe that there is no Article 3a or Article 8b in the Treaty on European Union. The Court understands the national court as intending to refer to Articles 3a and 8b of the Treaty establishing the European Community, as inserted by Article G(B)(4) and Article G(C) respectively of the Treaty on European Union.

6 By virtue of Article L of the Treaty on European Union, a national court may not refer to the Court a question on Article B of the Treaty on European Union in application of Article 177 of the Treaty. The Court therefore clearly has no jurisdiction to interpret that article in the context of such proceedings.

7 As regards the other provisions mentioned in the order for reference, the Court observes that, apart from the parties to the main proceedings and the Commission, only the Spanish, French and Italian Governments have submitted observations. The French and Italian Governments have referred to their difficulty in identifying the factual and legislative framework of the questions asked. In particular, the French Government notes that no details have been given of the monopolies in question in the main proceedings, while the Italian Government wonders whether the national court is considering an importation monopoly or a marketing monopoly and points out the complete lack of any statement of reasons as regards the possible incompatibility of those monopolies with Community law. Finally, neither the Commission nor some of the governments see the need for interpretation of several of the provisions referred to in order to resolve the dispute before the national court.

8 It must be pointed out that in view of the need to arrive at an interpretation of Community law which will be helpful to the national court, it is necessary for that court to define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual premisses on which those questions are based (see, in particular, the judgment in Joined Cases C-320/90, C-321/90 and C-322/90 Telemarsicabruzzo v Circostel [1993] ECR I-393, paragraph 5, the order in Case C-157/92 Pretore di Genova v Banchero [1993] ECR I-1085, paragraph 4, and the order in Case C-458/93 Saddik [1995] ECR I-0000, paragraph 12).

9 Furthermore, it is essential that the national court should give at the very least some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions of which it requests an interpretation and on the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute.

10 In that respect, it should be emphasized that the information provided in decisions making references to satisfy those requirements serves not only to enable the Court to give helpful answers but also to enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court. It is the Court' s duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the decisions making references are notified to the interested parties (see the judgment in Joined Cases 141/81, 142/81 and 143/81 Holdijk and Others [1982] ECR 1299, paragraph 6, and the order in Saddik, cited above, paragraph 13).

11 It must be stated that the order for reference does not contain sufficient information to comply with the abovementioned requirements. In particular, as the French and Italian Governments have rightly pointed out, the order contains insufficient details of the monopolies in question in the main proceedings and does not provide any indication of the reasons which led the national court to raise the question of the compatibility of the contested Spanish legislation with the various Community provisions which it asks the Court to interpret. One of the provisions, namely Article 8b of the EC Treaty, even appears altogether irrelevant in view of the subject matter of the main proceedings. The order for reference does not therefore enable the Court to give a helpful interpretation of Community law.

12 In those circumstances, it must be held, pursuant to Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure, that the Court clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to a question seeking a preliminary ruling on Article B of the Treaty on European Union and that, as to the remainder, the request from the national court is manifestly inadmissible.

Costs

13 The costs incurred by the Spanish, French and Italian Governments and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby orders:

The Court has no jurisdiction to reply to a question on Article B of the Treaty on European Union asked by the Juzgado de Instrucción de Sueca, Valencia (Spain), in a request for a preliminary ruling made by order of 18 May 1994. As to the remainder, the request from the Juzgado de Instrucción is inadmissible.

Luxembourg, 7 April 1995.