Order — ECLI:EU:C:1998:539
Date: 1998-11-12
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Transport
Concepts: Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Order 
Preliminary rulings —Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Agreement concluded between cer­
tain Member States on charges for the use of roads — Exemption — Community directive 
authorising the conclusion of the agreement — Lack of effect — Reference by the agreement to 
definitions contained in the directive — Lack of effect in the case of a reference concerning the 
interpretation of a term not included in those definitions 
(EC Treaty, Art. 177; Council Directive 93/89) 
I - 7083 
SUMMARY — CASE C-162/98 
The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to 
reply to a reference for a preliminary ruling 
on the interpretation of the Agreement of 
9 February 1994 concluded between the Gov­
ernments of certain Member States on the 
levying of charges for the use of certain roads 
by heavy commercial vehicles where the ques­
tion referred concerns neither the interpreta­
tion of the Treaty nor the validity or inter­
pretation of acts of the institutions of the 
Community. 
It is irrelevant in that regard that the pre­
amble to the Agreement refers to Directive 
93/89 on the application of taxes on certain 
vehicles used for the carriage of goods by 
road and tolls and charges for the use of cer­
tain infrastructures, which authorises two or 
more Member States to cooperate in intro­
ducing a common system for user charges, 
subject to certain conditions in addition to 
those governing the imposition of such charges 
where Member States act individually, since 
the mere fact that the directive authorises 
Member States to cooperate in that way is 
not enough to justify the view that an agree­
ment concluded for that purpose forms an 
integral part of Community law whose inter­
pretation falls within the jurisdiction of the 
Court. 
Nor can such jurisdiction be inferred from 
the fact that the Agreement refers to certain 
definitions contained in the directive, inas­
much as those definitions do not include the 
term forming the subject-matter of the request 
for interpretation. 
I - 7084