STATED THE QUESTION CONCERNS THE CONFORMITY OF NATIONAL LAW WITH COMMUNITY LAW . IN THAT RESPECT IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT UNDER ARTICLE 177 THE COURT HAS NO POWER TO APPLY A RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW TO A PARTICULAR CASE OR TO JUDGE A PROVISION OF NATIONAL LAW BY REFERENCE TO THAT RULE . IN PURSUANCE OF THE JUDICIAL COOPERATION PROVIDED FOR BY THAT ARTICLE IT MAY , HOWEVER , ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED TO IT , PROVIDE A NATIONAL COURT WITH INFORMATION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH MAY BE USEFUL TO IT IN ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF THE PROVISION .
7 IT APPEARS FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE QUESTION REFERRED BY THE COUR D ' APPEL SEEKS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER , ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW AS REFLECTED IN PARTICULAR BY ARTICLE 220 OF THE EEC TREATY , THE BENEFIT OF LEGISLATION IN A MEMBER STATE INTENDED TO PROMOTE THE USE OF THE LANGUAGE OF A GROUP OF NATIONALS OF THAT STATE , ESPECIALLY IN THE COURTS , MUST BE EXTENDED WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONALITY TO NATIONALS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES WHO FULFIL ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR THE USE OF A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE POPULATION GROUP CONCERNED .
8 THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT IN THAT REGARD THAT THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 220 OF THE EEC TREATY MERELY PROVIDES THAT SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY THE MEMBER STATES ARE TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH EACH OTHER WITH A VIEW TO SECURING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIR NATIONALS THE ENJOYMENT AND PROTECTION OF RIGHTS UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THOSE ACCORDED BY EACH STATE TO ITS OWN NATIONALS . SO LONG AS A CONVENTION TO THAT EFFECT IS NOT IN FORCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR INDIVIDUALS TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE RIGHTS REFERRED TO IN THAT PROVISION . THE RIGHT TO USE A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE IN A MEMBER STATE , PARTICULARLY IN THE COURTS , UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THE NATIONALS OF THAT STATE MAY , HOWEVER , BE RELIED ON BY A MIGRANT WORKER WHO IS A NATIONAL OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AS A ' SOCIAL ADVANTAGE ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 1612/68 OF THE COUNCIL , WHICH WAS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 49 OF THE TREATY .
9 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC PUTS FORWARD THREE MAIN ARGUMENTS . FIRST , IT SUBMITS THAT NATIONAL PROVISIONS ADOPTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED MINORITY CAN ONLY CONCERN PERSONS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THAT MINORITY AND RESIDE IN THE AREA WHERE THAT MINORITY IS ESTABLISHED . SECONDLY , IT ARGUES THAT ARTICLE 220 CANNOT CREATE RIGHTS AND DUTIES SO LONG AS THE MEMBER STATES HAVE NOT MADE AN APPROPRIATE CONVENTION . FINALLY , IT POINTS OUT THAT THE COURT HAS HELD THAT A ' SOCIAL ADVANTAGE ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 7 OF REGULATION NO 1612/68 MUST BE