Order — ECLI:EU:C:1999:113
Date: 1999-03-02
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Full Court
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Quantitative restrictions
Concepts: Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the O r d e r 
Preliminary ridings — Admissibility — Questions unaccompanied by sufficient information as to 
their factual and legislative context — Questions referred in a context where iio useful answer is 
possible 
(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 context of 
the questions it is asking or, at the very least, 
explain the factual circumstances on which 
those questions arc based. The information 
provided in orders for reference must not 
only be such as to enable the Court usefully 
to reply but must also make it possible for 
the governments of the Member States and 
other interested parties to submit observa-
I - 1279 
SUMMARY — CASE C-422/98 
tions pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute 
of the Court of Justice. Furthermore, given 
that, pursuant to that provision, only the 
orders for reference are notified to the inter­
ested parties, the fact that the national court 
refers to the observations submitted by the 
parties to the main proceedings — which, 
moreover, are likely to contain differing 
accounts of the dispute — is not sufficient to 
safeguard the right of each party under the 
above provision to submit observations. 
Consequently, an order for reference which 
does not describe the factual background to 
the dispute, its findings of fact, the national 
legislative context or the precise reasons for 
which it is uncertain as to the interpretation 
of Community law and considers it necessary 
to refer a question to the Court is manifestly 
inadmissible in that it makes it impossible for 
the Court to provide a useful interpretation 
of Community law. 
I - 1280