Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health.
Date: 1982-10-06
6 THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL OF A MEMBER STATE MAY , IF IT CONSIDERS THAT A DECISION ON A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE IT TO GIVE JUDGMENT , REQUEST THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO GIVE A RULING THEREON . THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT , WHERE A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION IS RAISED IN A CASE PENDING BEFORE A COURT OR TRIBUNAL OF A MEMBER STATE AGAINST WHOSE DECISIONS THERE IS NO JUDICIAL REMEDY UNDER NATIONAL LAW , THAT COURT OR TRIBUNAL SHALL , BRING THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE .
7 THAT OBLIGATION TO REFER A MATTER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE IS BASED ON COOPERATION , ESTABLISHED WITH A VIEW TO ENSURING THE PROPER APPLICATION AND UNIFORM INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES , BETWEEN NATIONAL COURTS , IN THEIR CAPACITY AS COURTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW , AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE . MORE PARTICULARLY , THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 177 SEEKS TO PREVENT THE OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF DIVERGENCES IN JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON QUESTIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW . THE SCOPE OF THAT OBLIGATION MUST THEREFORE BE ASSESSED , IN VIEW OF THOSE OBJECTIVES , BY REFERENCE TO THE POWERS OF THE NATIONAL COURTS , ON THE ONE HAND , AND THOSE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE , ON THE OTHER , WHERE SUCH A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION IS RAISED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 177 .
9 IN THIS REGARD , IT MUST IN THE FIRST PLACE BE POINTED OUT THAT ARTICLE 177 DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A MEANS OF REDRESS AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES TO A CASE PENDING BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL . THEREFORE THE MERE FACT THAT A PARTY CONTENDS THAT THE DISPUTE GIVES RISE TO A QUESTION CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL CONCERNED IS COMPELLED TO CONSIDER THAT A QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 177 . ON THE OTHER HAND , A NATIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL MAY , IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE , REFER A MATTER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF ITS OWN MOTION .
10 SECONDLY , IT FOLLOWS FROM THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPHS OF ARTICLE 177 THAT THE COURTS OR TRIBUNALS REFERRED TO IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH HAVE THE SAME DISCRETION AS ANY OTHER NATIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER A DECISION ON A QUESTION OF COMMUNITY LAW IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THEM TO GIVE JUDGMENT . ACCORDINGLY , THOSE COURTS OR TRIBUNALS ARE NOT OBLIGED TO REFER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE A QUESTION CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW RAISED BEFORE THEM IF THAT QUESTION IS NOT RELEVANT , THAT IS TO SAY , IF THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION , REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT MAY BE , CAN IN NO WAY AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE .
11 IF , HOWEVER , THOSE COURTS OR TRIBUNALS CONSIDER THAT RECOURSE TO COMMUNITY LAW IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THEM TO DECIDE A CASE , ARTICLE 177 IMPOSES AN OBLIGATION ON THEM TO REFER TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE ANY QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION WHICH MAY ARISE .
13 IT MUST BE REMEMBERED IN THIS CONNECTION THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 27 MARCH 1963 IN JOINED CASES 28 TO 30/62 ( DA COSTA V NEDERLANDSE BELASTINGADMINISTRATIE ( 1963 ) ECR 31 ) THE COURT RULED THAT : ' ' ALTHOUGH THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 177 UNRESERVEDLY REQUIRES COURTS OR TRIBUNALS OF A MEMBER STATE AGAINST WHOSE DECISIONS THERE IS NO JUDICIAL REMEDY UNDER NATIONAL LAW . . . TO REFER TO THE COURT EVERY QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION RAISED BEFORE THEM , THE AUTHORITY OF AN INTERPRETATION UNDER ARTICLE 177 ALREADY GIVEN BY THE COURT MAY DEPRIVE THE OBLIGATION OF ITS PURPOSE AND THUS EMPTY IT OF ITS SUBSTANCE . SUCH IS THE CASE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE QUESTION RAISED IS MATERIALLY IDENTICAL WITH A QUESTION WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A PRELIMINARY RULING IN A SIMILAR CASE . ' '
14 THE SAME EFFECT , AS REGARDS THE LIMITS SET TO THE OBLIGATION LAID DOWN BY THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 177 , MAY BE PRODUCED WHERE PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURT HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH THE POINT OF LAW IN QUESTION , IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH LED TO THOSE DECISIONS , EVEN THOUGH THE QUESTIONS AT ISSUE ARE NOT STRICTLY IDENTICAL .
15 HOWEVER , IT MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT IN ALL SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES NATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS , INCLUDING THOSE REFERRED TO IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 177 , REMAIN ENTIRELY AT LIBERTY TO BRING A MATTER BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE IF THEY CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO DO SO .
16 FINALLY , THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW MAY BE SO OBVIOUS AS TO LEAVE NO SCOPE FOR ANY REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE QUESTION RAISED IS TO BE RESOLVED . BEFORE IT COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SUCH IS THE CASE , THE NATIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL MUST BE CONVINCED THAT THE MATTER IS EQUALLY OBVIOUS TO THE COURTS OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES AND TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE . ONLY IF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED , MAY THE NATIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL REFRAIN FROM SUBMITTING THE QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND TAKE UPON ITSELF THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESOLVING IT .
17 HOWEVER , THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A POSSIBILITY MUST BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF COMMUNITY LAW AND THE PARTICULAR DIFFICULTIES TO WHICH ITS INTERPRETATION GIVES RISE .
18 TO BEGIN WITH , IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT COMMUNITY LEGISLATION IS DRAFTED IN SEVERAL LANGUAGES AND THAT THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE VERSIONS ARE ALL EQUALLY AUTHENTIC . AN INTERPRETATION OF A PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW THUS INVOLVES A COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE VERSIONS .
19 IT MUST ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND , EVEN WHERE THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE VERSIONS ARE ENTIRELY IN ACCORD WITH ONE ANOTHER , THAT COMMUNITY LAW USES TERMINOLOGY WHICH IS PECULIAR TO IT . FURTHERMORE , IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT LEGAL CONCEPTS DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE SAME MEANING IN COMMUNITY LAW AND IN THE LAW OF THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES .
20 FINALLY , EVERY PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW MUST BE PLACED IN ITS CONTEXT AND INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW AS A WHOLE , REGARD BEING HAD TO THE OBJECTIVES THEREOF AND TO ITS STATE OF EVOLUTION AT THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROVISION IN QUESTION IS TO BE APPLIED .
21 IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS , THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE CORTE SUPREMA DI CASSAZIONE MUST BE THAT THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF     ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A COURT OR TRIBUNAL AGAINST WHOSE DECISIONS THERE IS NO JUDICIAL REMEDY UNDER NATIONAL LAW IS REQUIRED , WHERE A QUESTION OF COMMUNITY LAW IS RAISED BEFORE IT , TO COMPLY WITH ITS OBLIGATION TO BRING THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE , UNLESS IT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE QUESTION RAISED IS IRRELEVANT OR THAT THE COMMUNITY PROVISION IN QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE COURT OR THAT THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW IS SO OBVIOUS AS TO LEAVE NO SCOPE FOR ANY REASONABLE DOUBT . THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A POSSIBILITY MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNITY LAW , THE PARTICULAR DIFFICULTIES TO WHICH ITS INTERPRETATION GIVES RISE AND THE RISK OF DIVERGENCES IN JUDICIAL DECISIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY .