Order — ECLI:EU:C:1998:187
Date: 1998-04-30
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Quantitative restrictions;Dominant position
Concepts: Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Summary of the O r d e r 
Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Questions raised without sufficient information regarding 
the factual and legislative context — Questions raised in a context precluding a useful reply 
(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20) 
In order to reach an interpretation of Com­
munity law which will be of use to the 
national court, it is essential that the national 
court define the factual and legislative con­
text of the questions it is asking or, at the 
very least, explain the factual circumstances 
on which those questions are based. 
In that respect the information provided and 
the questions raised in orders for reference 
must not only be such as to enable the 
Court usefully to reply but must also give 
the Governments of the Member States and 
interested parties the opportunity to submit 
observations pursuant to Article 20 of the 
I -2181 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-128/97 AND C-137/97 
Statute of the Court. 
It is the Court's duty to ensure that the 
opportunity to submit observations is safe­
guarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of 
the abovementioned provision, only the 
orders for reference are notified to the inter­
ested parties. 
A request by a national court which fails to 
give sufficient details of the national legisla­
tive context of the questions which it has put 
to the Court and to state the precise reasons 
which prompted it to examine the compat­
ibility with Community law of certain pro­
visions of national law or the reasons why it 
considers an answer to those questions to be 
necessary for the resolution of the dispute 
before it is consequently manifestly inadmis­
sible, in so far as it does not enable the Court 
to give a useful interpretation of Community 
law. 
I - 2 1 8 2