Südwestrundfunk v Tilo Rittinger and Others.
Date: 2018-12-13
31


In this connection, it must be pointed out that the functioning of the system of cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts established by Article 267 TFEU requires, as does the principle of primacy of EU law, the national court to be free, at whatever point during the proceedings it considers appropriate, to refer to the Court for a preliminary ruling any question that it considers necessary (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 June 2015, Kernkraftwerk Lippe-Ems, C‑5/14, EU:C:2015:354, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
36


It must be recalled that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court and the national courts provided for in Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which a 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 EU law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (judgment of 26 July 2017, Persidera, C‑112/16, EU:C:2017:597, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
37


Nonetheless, the Court cannot rule on a question submitted by a national court where it is quite obvious that the interpretation sought by that court of a rule of EU law 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 (judgment of 31 January 2008, Centro Europa 7, C‑380/05, EU:C:2008:59, paragraph 53).
38


It must be recalled that the need to provide an interpretation of EU law which will be of use to the national court means that the national court is bound to observe scrupulously the requirements concerning the content of a request for a preliminary ruling, expressly set out in Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, of which the referring court should be aware (judgment of26 July 2017, Persidera, C‑112/16, EU:C:2017:597, paragraph 27). Those requirements are, moreover, stated in the Court’s Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings (OJ 2018 C 257, p. 1).
39


Thus it is essential, as is stated in Article 94(c) of the Rules of Procedure, that the reference for a preliminary ruling itself must contain a statement of the reasons which prompted the national court to inquire about the interpretation or validity of certain provisions of EU law, and the relationship between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the case before the referring court. It is also essential, as is provided for in Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure, that the order for reference itself contains, at least, an account of the facts on which the questions are based. In accordance with the case-law of the Court, those requirements are of particular importance in the area of competition, where the factual and legal situations are often complex (judgment of 26 July 2017, Persidera, C‑112/16, EU:C:2017:597, paragraphs 28 and 29).
42


It follows from the direct effect of Article 108(3) TFEU that national courts must guarantee to individuals that all the appropriate conclusions will be drawn from an infringement of that provision, in accordance with their national law, as regards the validity of implementing measures, the recovery of financial support granted in disregard of that provision and possible interim measures (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 July 1996, SFEI and Others, C‑39/94, EU:C:1996:285, paragraphs 39 and 40; of 16 April 2015, Trapeza Eurobank Ergasias, C‑690/13, EU:C:2015:235, paragraph 52; and of 11 November 2015, Klausner Holz Niedersachsen, C‑505/14, EU:C:2015:742, paragraphs 23 and 24).
43


Moreover, the Court can give the referring court full guidance on the interpretation of EU law in order to enable it to assess the compatibility of a national measure with that law for the purposes of deciding the case before it. In the case of State aid, the Court can in particular give the referring court guidance on interpretation in order to enable it to determine whether a national measure may be classified as State aid under EU law (judgment of 10 June 2010, Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo, C‑140/09, EU:C:2010:335, paragraph 24) or whether that measure constitutes existing aid or new aid (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 March 2015, OTP Bank, C‑672/13, EU:C:2015:185, paragraph 60).
50


According to settled case-law of the Court, the justification for making a request for a preliminary ruling is not that it enables advisory opinions to be delivered on general or hypothetical questions, but rather that it is necessary for the effective resolution of a dispute concerning EU law (judgment of 21 December 2016, Tele2 Sverige and Watson and Others, C‑203/15 and C‑698/15, EU:C:2016:970, paragraph 130 and the case-law cited).