EUR-Lex - 61997O0066 - EN
Avis juridique important
|
61997O0066
Order of the Court of 30 June 1997.
-
Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA v Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim, Maria da Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim and Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela Ldª (CTV).
-
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa - Portugal.
-
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility.
-
Case C-66/97.
European Court reports 1997 Page I-03757
Summary
Keywords
Preliminary rulings - Admissibility - Questions not relating to specific technical points, submitted without providing any explanation of the factual and legislative context(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)
Summary
In order to reach an interpretation of Community 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 are based.The information provided in orders for reference not only enables the Court usefully to reply but also gives the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court.
It is the Court's duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties. The requirement for the national court to define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking is less pressing where the questions relate to specific technical points and enable the Court to give a useful reply even where the national court has not given an exhaustive description of the legal and factual situation. None the less, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible where the order for reference does not contain sufficient information regarding the factual and legal situation in the case before it and merely reproduces the questions suggested by the defendants in the main proceedings.