VIEW , PURELY HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS , FOR WHICH THE DISPUTE IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS IS MERELY A PRETEXT , MAY NOT BE REFERRED TO THE COURT .
6 AS FAR AS THAT POINT IS CONCERNED , IT SHOULD FIRST BE RECALLED THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 16 DECEMBER 1981 , CITED ABOVE , THE COURT STATED THAT IN ORDER THAT IT MAY PERFORM ITS TASKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREATY IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR NATIONAL COURTS TO EXPLAIN , WHEN THE REASONS ARE NOT CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE , WHY THEY CONSIDER THAT A REPLY TO THEIR QUESTIONS IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THEM TO GIVE JUDGMENT .
7 IT IS THEREFORE REGRETTABLE THAT THE NATIONAL COURT HAS NOT SUPPLIED ANY GROUNDS FOR ITS ORDERS REQUESTING A PRELIMINARY RULING , PARTICULARLY SINCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE EITHER FROM THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED OR FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASES WHAT USE THE QUESTIONS HAVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE JUDGMENTS WHICH IT MUST GIVE . NEVERTHELESS , THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT , IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE , TO DECLINE TO REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT SOLELY FOR THAT REASON WOULD NOT BE IN THE INTERESTS OF PROCEDURAL ECONOMY .
8 MOREOVER , AS THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD AND WAS CONFIRMED IN ITS AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF 16 DECEMBER 1981 , IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO ASSESS , HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE , THE NEED TO OBTAIN A PRELIMINARY RULING TO ENABLE IT TO GIVE JUDGMENT . ITS ASSESSMENT MUST BE RESPECTED EVEN IF , AS IN THIS CASE , IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE ANSWERS WHICH THE COURT IS ASKED TO GIVE CAN INFLUENCE THE DECISION IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS . IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THOSE PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTE IN REALITY A PROCEDURAL CONTRIVANCE .
9 AS REGARDS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT , THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS CLAIM THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR DOCTORS MAKES IT NECESSARY TO ENSURE IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES THAT THE QUALITY OF TRAINING FOR DOCTORS ATTAINS A CERTAIN LEVEL AND TO PREVENT THE DISCRIMINATION AND DISTORTION WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM AN ARTIFICIAL MIGRATION OF STUDENTS AND DOCTORS . FOR THAT REASON , THE INTRODUCTION OF A NUMERUS CLAUSUS FOR FACULTIES , AS EXISTS IN ALMOST ALL THE MEMBER STATES , IS ESSENTIAL .
10 THE ITALIAN AND BELGIAN GOVERNMENTS AND THE COMMISSION STRESS THAT THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY RULES CONTAIN NO PROVISION REGARDING THE RESTRICTION OF ACCESS TO MEDICAL FACULTIES , WHICH THE MEMBER STATES ARE AT LIBERTY TO REGULATE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THEIR OWN POWERS . THE ABSENCE OF A RESTRICTION ON THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS ADMITTED TO UNIVERSITY CANNOT IMPEDE THE FREE MOVEMENT OF DOCTORS .
11 IN THAT RESPECT IT IS SUFFICIENT TO POINT OUT THAT NEITHER ARTICLE 3 ( C ) NOR ARTICLE 57 ( 3 ) OF