Manuel José Lourenço Dias v Director da Alfândega do Porto.
Date: 1992-07-16
14 The Court has consistently held (see, in the first place, Case 16/65 Schwarze v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle Getreide [1965] ECR 877 and, most recently, Case C-147/91 Criminal proceedings against Ferrer Laderer [1992] ECR I-4097, paragraph 6) that the procedure provided for in Article 177 of the Treaty is an instrument for cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts.
15 It is also settled law (see, in the first place, Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Board v Redmond [1978] ECR 2347, paragraph 25, and, most recently, Case C-186/90 Durighello v INPS [1991] ECR I-5773, paragraph 8), that in the context of that cooperation, the national court, which alone has direct knowledge of the facts of the case, is in the best position to assess, having regard to the particular features of the case, whether a preliminary ruling is necessary to enable it to give judgment.
16 Consequently, since the questions submitted by the national court concern the interpretation of a provision of Community law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see Case C-231/89 Gmurzynska-Bischer v Oberfinanzdirektion Koeln [1990] ECR I-4003, paragraph 20).
17 Nevertheless, in Case 244/80 Foglia v Novello [1981] ECR 3045, paragraph 21, the Court considered that, in order to determine whether it has jurisdiction, it is a matter for the Court of Justice to examine the conditions in which the case has been referred to it by the national court. The spirit of cooperation which must prevail in the preliminary ruling procedure requires the national court 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 v Novello, cited above, paragraphs 18 and 20, and Case 149/82 Robards v Insurance Officer [1983] ECR 171, paragraph 19).
18 In view of that task, the Court considers that it cannot give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a national court where, inter alia, the interpretation requested relates to measures not yet adopted by the Community institutions (see Case 93/78 Mattheus v Doego [1978] ECR 2203, paragraph 8), the procedure before the court making the reference for a preliminary ruling has already been terminated (see Case 338/85 Pardini v Ministero del commercio con l' estero [1988] ECR 2041, paragraph 11) or the interpretation of Community law or the examination of the validity of a rule of Community law sought by the national court bears no relation to the actual nature of the case or to the subject-matter of the main action (Case 126/80 Salonia v Poidomani and Giglio [1981] ECR 1563, paragraph 6, and, most recently, Durighello, cited above, paragraph 9).
19 It should also be borne in mind that, in order to enable the Court to provide a useful interpretation of Community law, it is appropriate that, before making the reference to the Court, the national court should establish the facts of the case and settle the questions of purely national law (see Joined Cases 36 and 71/80 Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association v Ireland [1981] ECR 735, paragraph 6). By the same token, it is essential for the national court to explain the reasons why it considers that a reply to its questions is necessary to enable it to give judgment (see, in the first place, Foglia v Novello, cited above, paragraph 17, and, most recently, Joined Cases 98, 162 and 258/85 Bertini v Regione Lazio [1986] ECR 1885, paragraph 6).
20 With this information in its possession, the Court is in a position to ascertain whether the interpretation of Community law which is sought is related to the actual nature and subject-matter of the main proceedings. If it should appear that the question raised is manifestly irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the case, the Court must declare that there is no need to proceed to judgment.
48 The fact that certain categories of products may be subjected to discriminatory treatment cannot have any bearing on the compatibility with Community law of internal taxes charged on other categories of products where those taxes are implied in a non-discriminatory manner. The possibility of discrimination against some products does not necessarily have the effect of rendering the entire tax system incompatible with Community law (see, with regard to discrimination affecting rules on access to public posts, the judgment in Case C-355/89 Barr and Montrose [1991] ECR I-3479, paragraph 19).
53 In any event, it should be recalled that the Court has held (Case 193/85 Co-Frutta v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato [1987] ECR 2085, paragraph 14) that a charge which is imposed on both imported products and domestic products but in practice applies almost exclusively to imported products because domestic production is extremely small does not constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty on imports within the meaning of Articles 9 and 12 of the EEC Treaty if it is part of a general system of internal dues applied systematically to categories of products in accordance with objective criteria irrespective of the origin of the products. It therefore constitutes internal taxation within the meaning of Article 95.
54 The motor-vehicle tax, which is applied without distinction to vehicles assembled and manufactured in Portugal and to imported new and second-hand vehicles alike, is part of such a general system of internal charges imposed on categories of products in accordance with an objective criterion, namely cubic capacity.