Bacardi-Martini SAS and Cellier des Dauphins v Newcastle United Football Company Ltd.
Date: 2003-01-21
40.  The United Kingdom Government agrees with that argument and adds that, if it were an express or implied term of the contract between Newcastle and CSI that the broadcast of the match would comply with French law, the compatibility of the French law with Article 59 of the Treaty would indeed be of relevance for the main proceedings. In any event, the requirement imposed on the French broadcaster to negotiate compliance with the Loi Évin when matches taking place abroad are broadcast gives that law extraterritorial effect.
Findings of the Court
41.  It is settled case-law that it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see,inter alia  , Case C-415/93   Bosman   [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 59; Case C-379/98   PreussenElektra   [2001] ECR I-2099, paragraph 38; and Case C-153/00   Der Weduwe   [2002] ECR I-11319, paragraph 31).
42.  However, the Court has also held that, in exceptional circumstances, it can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court (see, to that effect,   PreussenElektra  , paragraph 39). The spirit of cooperation which must prevail in preliminary ruling proceedings requires the national court for its part to have regard to the function entrusted to the Court of Justice, which is to contribute to the administration of justice in the Member States and not to give opinions on general or hypothetical questions (Bosman  , paragraph 60, and   Der Weduwe  , paragraph 32).
43.  Thus the Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on a question submitted by a national court where it is quite obvious that the interpretation or the assessment of the validity of a provision of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose,  or where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see   Bosman  , paragraph 61; Case C-437/97   EKW and Wein  & Co   [2000] ECR I-1157, paragraph 52; and Case C-36/99   Idéal Tourisme   [2000] ECR I-6049, paragraph 20).
44.  In order that the Court may perform its task in accordance with the Treaty, it is essential for national courts to explain, when the reasons do not emerge beyond any doubt from the file, why they consider that a reply to their questions is necessary to enable them to give judgment (Case 244/80   Foglia   [1981] ECR 3045, paragraph 17). Thus the Court has held that it is essential that the national court should give at the very least some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions which it requires to be interpreted and of the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute (order in Case C-116/00   Laguillaumie   [2000] ECR I-4979, paragraph 16).
45.  Moreover, the Court must display special vigilance when, in the course of proceedings between individuals, a question is referred to it with a view to permitting the national court to decide whether the legislation of another Member State is in accordance with Community law (Foglia  , paragraph 30).