Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:397
Date: 2002-06-25
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Foodstuffs;Consumer protection
Concepts: Protection of geographical ascriptions and registered designations of origin;Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Manifestly irrelevant 
questions and questions regarding hypothetical problems in a context which precludes 
any useful answer — Questions not related to the purpose of the main proceedings 
(Art. 234 EC) 
I - 5917 
SUMMARY — CASE C-66/00 
2. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of geographical indications and 
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation 
No 2081/92 — System of derogation from Article 13(2) — Scope — Products orig­
inating in the State of the protected designation of origin — Not covered 
(Council Regulation No 2081/92, Art. 13(2)) 
1. In the context of the cooperation 
between the Court of Justice and the 
na t ional courts es tabl ished 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 sub­
sequent judicial decision, to determine 
in the light of the particular circum­
stances of the case both the need for a 
preliminary ruling in order to enable it 
to deliver judgment and the relevance 
of the questions which it submits to the 
Court. Consequently, where the ques­
tions submitted by the national court 
concern the interpretation of Commu­
nity law, the Court of Justice is, in 
principle, bound to give a ruling. 
However, in exceptional circum­
stances, it is for the Court to examine 
the conditions in which the case was 
referred to it by the national court, in 
order to assess whether it has jurisdic­
tion. The Court may refuse to rule on a 
question referred for a preliminary 
ruling by a national court only where 
it is quite obvious that the interpre­
tation of Community law that is sought 
bears no relation to the actual facts of 
the main action or its purpose, where 
the problem is hypothetical, or where 
the Court does not have before it the 
factual or legal material necessary to 
give a useful answer to the questions 
submitted to it. 
(see paras 18-19) 
2. On a p rope r c o n s t r u c t i o n of 
A r t i c l e 1 3 ( 2 ) of R e g u l a t i o n 
No 2081/92 on the protection of geo­
graphical indications and designations 
of origin for agricultural products and 
foodstuffs, as amended by Regulation 
No 535/97, products are not covered 
by the system of derogations set up by 
that article where they originate in the 
State which obtained the protected 
designation of origin the protection of 
which under Article 13(l)(a) and (b) of 
Regulation No 2081/92, as amended, 
is at issue and they do not meet the 
product specification for that protected 
designation of origin. 
(see para. 34, operative part) 
I -5918