IT WAS ENTITLED TO ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT THE ENR HAD ACTED AS A DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOOD-AID OPERATION AT ISSUE . IN THE NATIONAL COURT ' S VIEW , ' ' THE COMMISSION AND , THEREFORE , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 211 OF THE TREATY , THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY , ARE BOUND TO FULFIL THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE CAPACITY OF PARTY TO THE CONTRACT ONLY IF THAT QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ' ' . IN ORDER TO RESOLVE ITS DOUBTS AS TO THE REPLY TO BE GIVEN TO THAT QUESTION , IT STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ' WAS THE ENTE NAZIONALE RISI , THE ITALIAN INTERVENTION AGENCY , VESTED WITH SPECIFIC AUTHORITY TO ACT IN THE NAME OF THE EEC ( ' ' MANDATO CON RAPPRESENTANZA ' ' ) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCLUDING THE PRIVATE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF 3 750 METRIC TONS OF HUSKED LONG-GRAIN RICE INTENDED FOR THE REPUBLIC OF THE NIGER BY VIRTUE OF THE COMMISSION DECISION OF 10 DECEMBER 1976 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 259 OF 23 . 9 . 1976 , P . 22 ) AND THE LEGISLATIVE MEASURES REFERRED TO THEREIN EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION?
' '
8 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THEY HAVE JUST BEEN SET OUT AND FROM THE GROUNDS OF THE ORDER FOR REFERENCE THAT THE QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT SEEKS , IN REALITY , TO ETABLISH WHETHER IT IS TO THE COMMISSION OR TO THE NATIONAL INTERVENTION AGENCY THAT ANY LIABILITY WOULD ATTACH , UNDER THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS REGARDING FOOD AID WHICH WERE IN FORCE AT THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION DECISION OF 10 SEPTEMBER 1976 , VIS-A-VIS AN UNDERTAKING WHICH THE NATIONAL INTERVENTION AGENCY HAD CHOSEN AS THE OTHER PARTY TO A CONTRACT AND HAD INSTRUCTED TO CARRY OUT A FOOD-AID OPERATION DECIDED ON BY THE COMMISSION .
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO RULE ON THE QUESTION
9 ACCORDING TO THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , A QUESTION OF THE KIND SUBMITTED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THIS CASE CANNOT FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE SINCE IN ORDER TO REPLY TO THAT QUESTION IT WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ENR WAS TO BE REGARDED AS THE COMMISSION ' S AGENT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ITALIAN CIVIL CODE AND WOULD HAVE TO APPRAISE FACTS WHICH FELL FOR CONSIDERATION SOLELY BY THE ITALIAN COURT DEALING WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
10 IT IS APPARENT FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE ACTUAL PURPOSE , AS STATED ABOVE , OF THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING , THAT , CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , THAT QUESTION IS NOT OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO LEAD THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO APPRAISE THE NATURE OF THE LEGAL