Order — ECLI:EU:C:2013:655
Date: 2013-10-07
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Summary — Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 7 October 2013 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Interpretation of national law — Not included (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Questions of fact — Assessment of the Commission’s conduct in the context of the grant of EU financial aid — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU) 3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Admissibility — Limits — Questions of fact and hypothetical questions asked in a context which precludes any useful answer — Determination of the legal force of the Commission’s failure to act and the obligations incumbent on a Member State in the context of the grant of EU financial aid — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court and manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 11, 15) 2. The Court of Justice manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer questions of fact, such as whether the Commission cancelled the grant of an EU contribution, and to specify the measures adopted to that effect. (see para. 13, operative part 1) 3. It is not for the Court of Justice to determine the legal force which must be granted, in the context of the grant of EU financial aid, to the Commission’s failure to act and to specify the obligations incumbent on a Member State, those questions pre-suppose a factual interpretation of the conduct of the institution concerned which is not for the Court to decide within the context of Article 267 TFEU. Moreover, given that that institution’s failure to act cannot be declared by the Court in the course of preliminary ruling proceedings, the question of what legal force falls to be attached to that failure to act is a purely hypothetical issue and, therefore, inadmissible. Finally, the question as to the obligations incumbent on a Member State in the event of persistent failure to act on the part of the Commission is also purely hypothetical resulting in its inadmissibility. (see paras 13, 14, 16, 17, operative part 1, 2)