María Julia Zurita García (C-261/08) and Aurelio Choque Cabrera (C-348/08) v Delegado del Gobierno en la Región de Murcia.
Date: 2009-10-22
34. In that regard, it should be recalled that, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court. Similarly, it is solely for the national court, before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the ultimate 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 is in principle bound to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Case C‑326/00 IKA [2003] ECR I‑1703, paragraph 27; Case C‑145/03 Keller [2005] ECR I‑2529, paragraph 33; Case C‑419/04 Conseil général de la Vienne [2006] ECR I‑5645, paragraph 19; and Case C‑537/07 Gómez-Limón [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 24).
35. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, 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, inter alia, Case C‑379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I‑2099, paragraph 39; Case C‑390/99 Canal Satélite Digital [2002] ECR I‑607, paragraph 19; and Gómez-Limón , paragraph 25).
36. 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, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction (see, to that effect, Case 244/80 Foglia  [1981] ECR 3045, paragraph 21). The spirit of cooperation which must prevail in the preliminary ruling procedure requires the national court, for its part, to have regard to the function entrusted to the Court of Justice, which is to assist in the administration of justice in the Member States and not to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions ( Foglia , paragraphs 18 and 20; Case 149/82 Robards [1983] ECR 171, paragraph 19; and Case C‑83/91 Meilicke [1992] ECR I‑4871, paragraph 25).
37. In the present context, it must be held that, on the date on which the appellant in the main proceedings in Case C‑261/08 was officially accused of being unlawfully present on Spanish territory, namely 26 September 2006, Regulation No 562/2006 had not yet entered into force, with the result that the issue as to whether that regulation needs to be interpreted may arise in relation to the facts giving rise to that case.
38. It is Article 6b of the CISA, and not Article 11(3) of Regulation No 562/2006, which will be applicable if the date of the facts were to be the criterion for determining the law applicable ratione temporis  in Case C‑261/08. Article 6b of the CISA is among those provisions which were repealed under Article 39 of Regulation No 562/2006 with effect from 13 October 2006.
39. In any event, however, as the Advocate General notes in point 27 of her Opinion, Article 11(3) of Regulation No 562/2006 merely repeats the wording of Article 6b(3) of the CISA, which was in force when the appellant in the main proceedings was officially accused of being unlawfully present on Spanish territory.
46. Lastly, having regard to the fact that it cannot be ruled out that Articles 6b and 23 of the CISA may be applicable, ratione temporis , in Case C‑261/08 (see paragraphs 37 and 38 of this judgment), as the Austrian Government and the Commission of the European Communities suggest, it is appropriate to take those articles of the CISA into account when examining the question referred for a preliminary ruling in order to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it (see, by analogy, Case C‑275/06 Promusicae [2008] ECR I‑271, paragraph 46, and Case C‑346/06 Rüffert [2008] ECR I‑1989, paragraph 18).
54. It must be borne in mind in this regard that, according to settled case-law, the necessity for uniform application and accordingly for uniform interpretation of a Community measure makes it impossible to consider one version of the text in isolation, but requires that it be interpreted on the basis of both the real intention of its author and the aim he seeks to achieve, in the light, in particular, of the versions in all languages (see, inter alia, Case 29/69 Stauder [1969] ECR 419, paragraph 3; Case 55/87 Moksel Import und Export [1988] ECR 3845, paragraph 15; Case C‑268/99 Jany and Others [2001] ECR I‑8615, paragraph 47; and Case C‑188/03 Junk [2005] ECR I‑885, paragraph 33).
55. It also follows from settled case-law that the wording used in one language version of a Community provision cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement of the uniform application of Community law (see Case C‑149/97 Institute of the Motor Industry [1998] ECR I‑7053, paragraph 16; Case C‑187/07 Endendijk [2008] ECR I‑2115, paragraph 23; and Case C‑239/07 Sabatauskas and Others [2008] ECR I‑7523, paragraph 38).