Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat.
Date: 2017-03-15
31


It must be recalled, as a preliminary point, that in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU national courts against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law are required to make a reference to the Court (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 1982, Cilfit and Others, 283/81, EU:C:1982:335, paragraph 6).
32


The obligation to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU is based on cooperation, established with a view to ensuring the proper application and uniform interpretation of EU law in all the Member States, between national courts, in their capacity as courts responsible for the application of EU law, and the Court (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 September 2015, X and van Dijk, C‑72/14 and C‑197/14, EU:C:2015:564, paragraph 54).
33


Moreover, the obligation to make a reference laid down by the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU is intended in particular to prevent a body of national case-law that is not in accordance with the rules of EU law from being established in any of the Member States (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 September 2015, Intermodal Transports, C‑495/03, EU:C:2005:552, paragraph 29).
34


As the Court has pointed out on a number of occasions, a court adjudicating at last instance is by definition the last judicial body before which individuals may assert the rights conferred on them by EU law. Courts adjudicating at last instance have the task of ensuring at national level the uniform interpretation of rules of law (see, to that effect, judgments of 30 September 2003, Köbler, C‑224/01, EU:C:2003:513, paragraph 34, and of 13 June 2006, Traghetti del Mediterraneo, C‑173/03, EU:C:2006:391, paragraph 31).
42


In this respect, it should be recalled, to begin with, that, where there is no judicial remedy against the decisions of a national court, that court is in principle obliged to make a reference to the Court within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question of the interpretation of the FEU Treaty is raised before it (judgment of 18 July 2013, Consiglio Nazionale dei Geologi, C‑136/12, EU:C:2013:489, paragraph 25).
43


It follows from the relationship between the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU that the courts referred to in the third paragraph have the same discretion as all other national courts as to whether a decision on a question of EU law is necessary to enable them to give judgment. They are not therefore obliged to refer a question of the interpretation of EU law raised before them if the question is not relevant, that is to say, if the answer to that question, whatever it may be, cannot have any effect on the outcome of the case (judgment of 18 July 2013, Consiglio Nazionale dei Geologi, C‑136/12, EU:C:2013:489, paragraph 26).
44


Consequently, if, in accordance with the procedural rules of the Member State concerned, the pleas in law raised before a court referred to in the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be declared inadmissible, a request for a preliminary ruling cannot be regarded as necessary and relevant for that court to be able to give judgment.
45


According to settled case-law of the Court, the justification for a request for a preliminary ruling is not that it enables advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions to be delivered, but rather that it is necessary for the effective resolution of a dispute (judgment of 2 April 2009, Elshani, C‑459/07, EU:C:2009:224, paragraph 42).
48


It should be recalled here that, according to settled case-law of the Court, in the absence of EU rules on the matter, it is for the national legal order of each Member State to establish procedural rules for actions intended to safeguard the rights of individuals, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy, on condition, however, that those rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that they do not make it excessively difficult or impossible in practice to exercise the rights conferred by EU law (principle of effectiveness) (judgment of 17 March 2016, Bensada Benallal, C‑161/15, EU:C:2016:175, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).
49


It follows that two cumulative conditions, namely respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be satisfied in order for a Member State to be able to assert the principle of procedural autonomy in situations which are governed by EU law (judgment of 17 March 2016, Bensada Benallal, C‑161/15, EU:C:2016:175, paragraph 25).
50


First, as regards the principle of equivalence, it should be borne in mind that this requires that all the rules applicable to actions apply without distinction to actions alleging infringement of EU law and to similar actions alleging infringement of national law (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 January 2014, Pohl, C‑429/12, EU:C:2014:12, paragraph 26, and of 20 October 2016, Danqua, C‑429/15, EU:C:2016:789, paragraph 30).
52


Secondly, as regards the principle of effectiveness, a national procedural rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings must not be such as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the EU legal order (judgment of 20 October 2016, Danqua, C‑429/15, EU:C:2016:789, paragraph 29).
53


Moreover, according to the Court’s case-law, each case that raises the question whether a national procedural provision renders the exercise of rights conferred on individuals by the EU legal order impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national instances. In that context, it is necessary to take into consideration, where relevant, the principles which lie at the basis of the national legal system, such as the protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of the proceedings (judgment of 21 February 2008, Tele2 Communications, C‑426/05, EU:C:2008:103, paragraph 55).
56


In the light of the above considerations, the answer to Question 3 is that the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a court adjudicating at last instance may decline to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling where an appeal on a point of law is dismissed on grounds of inadmissibility specific to the procedure before that court, subject to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.