WHEN SUCH A QUESTION IS RAISED BEFORE THEM . HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF THIS PROVISION THE COURT CAN NEITHER APPLY THE TREATY TO A GIVEN CASE NOR GIVE JUDGMENT ON THE VALIDITY OF A MEASURE OF NATIONAL LAW WITH REGARD TO IT, AS IT IS REQUIRED TO DO UNDER ARTICLES 169 AND 170 . IT MAY, NONETHELESS, EXTRACT FROM THE WORDING OF THE REFERENCE SUBMITTED TO IT BY A NATIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL THE QUESTIONS ARISING AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TREATY . IN THE PRESENT CASE IT MUST THEREFORE NOT GIVE JUDGMENT ON THE VALIDITY WITH REGARD TO THE TREATY OF THE FRENCH LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF PETROLEUM, BUT ONLY INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID TREATY IN THE LIGHT OF THE LEGAL PARTICULARS PROVIDED BY THE ROME COURT .
IT IS OBJECTED THAT THE LATTER HAS REQUESTED, ESPECIALLY IN QUESTIONS B AND D, AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TREATY WHICH WAS NOT NECESSARY TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT .
HOWEVER, ARTICLE 177, BEING BASED ON A CLEAR SEPARATION OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN NATIONAL COURTS OR TRIBUNALS AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE, DOES NOT PERMIT THE LATTER TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE OR TO FIND FAULT WITH THE GROUNDS FOR MAKING THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION . THE OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
IT FOLLOWS FROM THE ORDER OF THE ROME COURT MAKING THE REFERENCE THAT THE QUESTIONS WERE DRAFTED AS THE RESULT OF AN ACTION FOR THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT OR FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE TERMINATION OF THE SAID CONTRACT, AN ACTION AGAINST WHICH TWO OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED, BASED FIRST ON THE NULLITY OF THE CONTRACT ON THE GROUND OF A FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE OF LAW AND SECONDLY ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE BY REASON OF THE UNFORESEEABLE FACT THAT THE TREATY WAS DISREGARDED BY ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SAID ORDER STATED THAT THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF THE REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING WAS TO ASCERTAIN THE EFFECT WHICH THE LIBERALIZATION RULES OF THE COMMUNITY, CITED IN THE ORDER, CONSIDERED AS RULES OF A ' SUPRANATIONAL ' LEGAL ORDER COMMON TO THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION, HAD ON THE RULES AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM GOVERNING THE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT .
THE COURT COULD NOT, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN OBSERVED, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ASKED IN SO FAR AS THEY PRESUPPOSE AN EXAMINATION OF THE RULES GOVERNING THE IMPORTATION OF PETROLEUM WHICH DERIVE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE FRENCH LAW OF 30 MARCH 1928 AND THE SUBSEQUENT REGULATIONS . CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO GROUND FOR EXAMINING WHETHER THE AFOREMENTIONED FRENCH RULES CONSTITUTE A NATIONAL MONOPOLY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 37 OF THE TREATY .
P.35
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE, AN ANSWER MUST BE SOUGHT TO THE QUESTION WHETHER, DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE YEAR 1959, IN