Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2002:740
Date: 2002-12-10
Language of the case: German
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Austria

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — General or hypotheti­
cal questions — Determination by the Court as to whether it has jurisdiction 
(Art. 234 EC) 
I -1389 
SUMMARY — CASE C-380/01 
2. Social policy — Men and women — Access to employment and working con­
ditions — Equal treatment — Directive 76/207 — Principle of effective control by 
the courts — Whether possibility of bringing a claim for compensation against the 
State before the civil courts is adequate 
(Council Directive 76/207, Art. 6) 
1. The p r o c e d u r e p r o v i d e d for by 
Article 234 EC is an instrument of 
cooperation between the Court of Jus­
tice and the national courts, by means 
of which the Court provides the 
national courts with the points of 
in terpre ta t ion of Communi ty law 
which they need in order to decide 
the disputes before them. In the context 
of that cooperation, 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 except ional c i rcum­
stances, 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 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. The spirit of cooper­
ation which must prevail in the pre­
liminary ruling procedure requires the 
national court to have regard to the 
function entrusted to the Court of 
Justice, which is to assist in the admin­
istration of justice in the Member 
States and not to deliver advisory 
opinions on general or hypothetical 
questions. 
(see paras 20-23) 
2. Article 6 of Directive 76/207 on the 
implementation of the principle of 
equal treatment for men and women 
as regards access to employment, voca­
tional training and promotion, and 
working conditions, which enables all 
persons who consider themselves 
wronged by failure to apply to them 
the principle of equal treatment to 
pursue their claims by judicial process, 
does not specify the nature of the court 
I - 1390 
SCHNEIDER 
to which the Member States must 
entrust that task. So long as persons 
who consider themselves wronged by 
failure to apply the principle of equal 
treatment to them are able to pursue 
their claims effectively before a com­
petent court , the requirements of 
Article 6 are satisfied. 
Consequently, the legislation of a 
Member State satisfies these require­
ments where it provides, through the 
general State liability provisions, for 
the possibility of bringing a general 
claim before the civil courts for com­
pensation against the State with a view 
to obtaining compensation for harm 
suffered as a result of a decision found 
to be unlawful having regard to the 
principle of equal treatment for men 
and women, the application of which is 
subject to several levels of review of the 
facts and the law by those courts. 
(see paras 24, 26-28) 
I - 1 3 9 1