AS THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD , IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 14 FEBRUARY 1980 ( ONPTS V DAMIANI , CASE 53/79 ( 1980 ) ECR 273 ), AS REGARDS THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN NATIONAL COURTS AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY , IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT , WHICH IS ALONE IN HAVING A DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE PARTIES AND WHICH MUST ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GIVING JUDGMENT IN THE CASE , TO ASSESS , WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTER BEFORE IT , THE RELEVANCE OF THE QUESTIONS OF LAW RAISED BY THE DISPUTE BEFORE IT AND THE NEED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING SO AS TO ENABLE IT TO GIVE JUDGMENT .
7 THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT POINTS OUT , HOWEVER , THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 16 DECEMBER 1981 ( CASE 244/80 FOGLIA V NOVELLO ( 1981 ) ECR 3045 ) THE COURT HELD THAT IT DID NOT CONSIDER ITSELF TO HAVE JURISDICTION TO REPLY TO QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION SUBMITTED BY A NATIONAL COURT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEDURAL DEVICES ARRANGED BY THE PARTIES IN ORDER TO INDUCE THE COURT TO GIVE ITS VIEWS ON CERTAIN PROBLEMS OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH DID NOT CORRESPOND TO AN OBJECTIVE REQUIREMENT INHERENT IN THE RESOLUTION OF A DISPUTE .
8 IN THIS INSTANCE , HOWEVER , NOTHING HAS EMERGED TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONAL CASES REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED DECISION .
9 THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT ALSO STATED THAT THE ORDER MAKING THE REFERENCE IS BASED ON A MANIFEST ERROR REGARDING THE PURPOSE AND THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW REFERRED TO THEREIN . IN THAT CONNECTION IT EMPHASIZES THAT MR MOSER IS A GERMAN NATIONAL AND HAS NEVER WORKED OR RESIDED IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY . CONSEQUENTLY , HIS SITUATION FALLS ENTIRELY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY , OF WHICH AN INTERPRETATION IS SOUGHT .
10 IT MUST HOWEVER BE STATED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELIED UPON BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT RELATE TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT . CONSEQUENTLY , WHILST THEY MAY BE RELEVANT TO AN ANSWER TO THOSE QUESTIONS , THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO RULE ON THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING .
11 THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT CANNOT THEREFORE BE UPHELD .
12 IN THE THREE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THE ARBEITSGERICHT ASKS ESSENTIALLY WHETHER ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY COVERS A SITUATION SUCH AS THAT IN WHICH MR MOSER FINDS HIMSELF AND , MORE PARTICULARLY , WHETHER A PERSON IN SUCH A SITUATION MAY RELY ON ARTICLE 48 TO PREVENT THE APPLICATION TO HIM OF LEGISLATION , SUCH AS THAT IN FORCE IN THE LAND , BY VIRTUE OF WHICH PERSONS AS