Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit.
Date: 2005-12-06
16. With regard to questions of interpretation, it is clear from the judgment in Case 283/81 Cilfit and Others  [1982] ECR 3415, paragraph 21, 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 (see also Case C‑495/03 Intermodal Transports  [2005] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 33).
17. However, it is clear from paragraph 20 of the Foto-Frost  judgment that national courts have no jurisdiction themselves to determine that acts of Community institutions are invalid.
18. The rule that national courts may not themselves determine that Community acts are invalid may have to be qualified in certain circumstances in the case of proceedings relating to an application for interim measures ( Foto-Frost , paragraph 19; see also, to that effect, Case 107/76 Hoffmann-La Roche  [1977] ECR 957, paragraph 6; Joined Cases 35/82 and 36/82 Morson and Jhanjan  [1982] ECR 3723, paragraph 8; Joined Cases C‑143/88 and C‑92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest  [1991] ECR I‑415, paragraphs 21 and 33; and Case C‑465/93 Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I)  [1995] ECR I‑3761, paragraphs 30, 33 and 51).
21. The main purpose of the jurisdiction conferred on the Court by Article 234 EC is to ensure that Community law is applied uniformly by national courts.  That requirement of uniformity is particularly vital where the validity of a Community act is in question.  Differences between courts of the Member States as to the validity of Community acts would be liable to jeopardise the essential unity of the Community legal order and undermine the fundamental requirement of legal certainty ( Foto-Frost , paragraph 15).
22. The possibility of a national court ruling on the invalidity of a Community act is likewise incompatible with the necessary coherence of the system of judicial protection instituted by the EC Treaty.  It is important to note in that regard that references for a preliminary ruling on validity constitute, on the same basis as actions for annulment, a means of reviewing the legality of Community acts.  By Articles 230 EC and 241 EC, on the one hand, and Article 234 EC, on the other,  the Treaty established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to ensure review of the legality of acts of the institutions and has entrusted such review to the Community Courts (see Case 294/83 Parti écologiste ‘Les Verts’  v Parliament  [1986] ECR 1339, paragraph 23; Foto-Frost , paragraph 16; and Case C‑50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores  [2002] ECR I‑6677, paragraph 40).
24. It must also be emphasised that the Community Courts are in the best position to rule on the validity of Community acts.   Under Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, Community institutions whose acts are challenged are entitled to participate in the proceedings in order to defend the validity of the acts in question.  Furthermore, under the second paragraph of Article 24 of that Statute, the Court may require Community institutions which are not participating in the proceedings to supply any information which it considers necessary for the purposes of the case before it (see Foto‑Frost , paragraph 18).