Monique Chateignier v Office national de l'emploi (ONEM).
Date: 2006-11-09
18. Whilst the Court has consistently held that, in the context of the application of Article 234 EC, it has no jurisdiction to decide whether a national provision is compatible with Community law, it may, none the less, extract from the wording of the questions formulated by the national court, and having regard to the facts stated by the latter, those elements which concern the interpretation of Community law, for the purpose of enabling that court to resolve the legal problems before it (see Joined Cases C-330/90 and C-331/90 López Brea and Hidalgo Palacios  [1992] ECR I-323, paragraph 5, and Case C-224/01 Köbler  [2003] ECR I-10239, paragraph 60).
19. Moreover, it is also settled case-law that it is for the Court alone, where questions may be formulated inappropriately or go beyond the ambit of its powers under Article 234 EC, to extract from all the information provided by the national court, and in particular from the grounds of the order for reference, the elements of Community law requiring interpretation – or, as the case may be, an assessment of validity – having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute (see Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Board  [1978] ECR 2347, paragraph 26, and Case C-107/98 Teckal  [1999] ECR I-8121, paragraph 34).
22. Lastly, with regard to the ONEM’s argument that the question referred is based on an incorrect assumption, it is to be noted that, where there are actual or apparent differences in analysis between the administrative or judicial authorities of a Member State regarding the proper construction of national legislation, particularly in respect of its exact scope, it is not for the Court to rule on which interpretation is in accordance, or most in accordance, with Community law. On the other hand, the Court is required to interpret Community law in the light of the factual and legal situation as described by the referring court, in order to provide that court with such guidance as will assist it in resolving the dispute before it (see Case C-108/96 Mac Quen and Others  [2001] ECR I-837, paragraph 18).
24. Even though, formally, the national court has confined its reference to interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 67(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1408/71, comparing the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings with that of non-Community workers, that does not prevent the Court from providing the national court with all those elements for the interpretation of Community law which may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not that court has specifically referred to them in its questions (see, in particular, Case C-241/89 SARPP  [1990] ECR I-4695, paragraph 8, and Case C-456/02 Trojani  [2004] ECR I-7573, paragraph 38).
30. With regard to the scope of that right, the Court has previously ruled that provisions such as Article 39 EC are intended to eliminate all measures which, in the field of freedom of movement of workers, treat a national of another Member State more severely or place him in a situation less advantageous, from a legal or factual point of view, than that of one of the Member State’s own nationals in the same circumstances (see Case 251/83 Haug-Adrion  [1984] ECR 4277, paragraph 14).
32. A difference in treatment of that kind can be justified only if it is based on objective considerations that are independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim of the national provisions (Case C-237/94 O’Flynn  [1996] ECR I-2617, paragraph 19, and Case C-138/02 Collins  [2004] ECR I-2703, paragraph 66).