Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:735
Date: 2002-12-10
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Freedom to provide services
Concepts: Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

SUMMARY — CASE C-153/00 
Summary of the Judgment 
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) 
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 Com­
munity 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 par­
ticular 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 particu­
larly necessary to state the grounds for the 
order for reference on that point. Accord­
ingly 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) 
I - 11320