Stoilov i Ko EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna.
Date: 2013-10-24
36. It is settled case-law that the procedure provided for by Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court and national courts by means of which the Court provides national courts with the criteria for the interpretation of European Union law which they need in order to decide the disputes before them (see, inter alia, Case C‑83/91 Meilicke  [1992] ECR I‑4871, paragraph 22, and Case C‑370/12 Pringle [2012] I‑0000, paragraph 83).
37. In the context of that cooperation, the national court seised of the dispute 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 and the relevance of the questions which it refers to the Court (see, to that effect, Case C‑343/90 Lourenço Dias  [1992] ECR I‑4673, paragraph 15, and Case C‑152/03 Ritter-Coulais  [2006] ECR I‑1711, paragraph 14).
38. That does not alter the fact that it is for the Court, where appropriate, to examine the circumstances in which the case was referred to it by a national court in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction and, in particular, determine whether the interpretation of European Union law that is sought bears any relation to the facts of the main action or its purpose, so that the Court is not led to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions (see, inter alia, to that effect, Case 244/80 Foglia  [1981] ECR 3045, paragraphs 18 and 21, and Case C‑167/01 Inspire Art  [2003] ECR I‑10155, paragraph 45). If it appears 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 (see, inter alia, Lourenço Dias , paragraph 20, and Ritter-Coulais , paragraph 15 and the case-law cited).
46. In those circumstances, it must be held that the present request for a preliminary ruling no longer involves an interpretation of European Union law objectively required for the referring court to make a decision (see, by analogy, inter alia, Case C-291/96 Grado and Bashir  [1997] ECR I-5531, paragraph 16). That request, in the absence of any subject matter, does not enable the factors to be discerned that are necessary for an interpretation of European Union law which the national court might usefully apply in order to resolve, in accordance with that law, the dispute before it (see, inter alia, to that effect, Case 132/81 Vlaeminck  [1982] ECR 2953, paragraph 13).
47. It is true that, in its reply to the request for clarification sent by the Court concerning the effect of the annulment of the notification decision on the main proceedings, the referring court considered that the customs authorities could adopt new decisions with the same contents as the notification and recovery decisions. However, even assuming that that is still the case, notwithstanding the judgment of 5 July 2012 of the Varhoven administrativen sad, it must be held that to reply to questions asked in such circumstances would amount to providing an advisory opinion on hypothetical questions in disregard of the Court’s task in the context of the judicial cooperation instituted by Article 267 TFEU (see, to that effect, Case 149/82 Robards  [1983] ECR 171, paragraph 19; Meilicke , paragraph 25; and Case C-451/99 Cura Anlagen [2002] ECR I-3193, paragraph 26).