CELEX: 61998CO0009
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-08 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of 8 July 1998. # Ermanno Agostini and Emanuele Agostini v Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL and Ligue belge de judo ASBL. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de première instance de Namur - Belgium. # Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility. # Case C-9/98.

Avis juridique important

|

61998O0009

Order of the Court of 8 July 1998.  -  Ermanno Agostini and Emanuele Agostini v Ligue francophone de judo et disciplines associées ASBL and Ligue belge de judo ASBL.  -  Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de première instance de Namur - Belgium.  -  Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility.  -  Case C-9/98.  

European Court reports 1998 Page I-04261

Summary
Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility of reference - Questions put without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context - Questions put in a context which excludes a useful reply(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)  

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the assumptions of fact on which those questions are based. The information provided in orders for reference not only enables the Court usefully to reply but also gives the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court.Consequently, a request from a national court which does not describe the factual context of the dispute or the assumptions of fact on which it is based, or explain the national legislative context, or the precise reasons which have prompted it to consider the interpretation of Community law and deem it necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling, is manifestly inadmissible, in that it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law.