Vlaamse federatie van verenigingen van Brood- en Banketbakkers, Ijsbereiders en Chocoladebewerkers (VEBIC) VZW.
Date: 2010-12-07
41. It is settled case-law that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts provided for by Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which a dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court (Case C‑217/05 Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio [2006] ECR I‑11987, paragraph 16, and Case C‑260/07 Pedro IV Servicios [2009] ECR I‑2437, paragraph 28).
42. Where questions submitted by national courts concern the interpretation of a provision of EU law, the Court of Justice is bound, in principle, to give a ruling unless it is obvious that the request for a preliminary ruling is in reality designed to induce the Court to give a ruling by means of a fictitious dispute, or to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions, or that the interpretation of EU law requested bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, or that the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (Case C‑306/99 BIAO [2003] ECR  I‑1, paragraph 89, and Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio , paragraph 17).
47. In that regard, it is clear from the case-law that, in view of the division of responsibilities between the national courts and the Court of Justice, the referring court cannot be required to make all the findings of fact and of law required by its judicial function first before it may then bring the matter before the Court. It is sufficient that both the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings and the main issues raised for the Community legal order may be understood from the reference for a preliminary ruling, in order to enable the Member States to submit their observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and to participate effectively in the proceedings before the Court (Case C‑42/07 Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 41).
56. It is also important to recall that, under Article 35(1) of the Regulation, the Member States are to designate the competition authority or authorities responsible for the application of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU in such a way that the provisions of that regulation are effectively complied with. The authorities so designated must, in accordance with the regulation, ensure that those Treaty Articles are applied effectively in the general interest (see Recitals 5, 6, 8, 34 and 35 in the preamble to the Regulation).
57. Although Article 35(1) of the Regulation leaves it to the domestic legal order of each Member State to determine the detailed procedural rules for legal proceedings brought against decisions of the competition authorities designated thereunder, such rules must not jeopardise the attainment of the objective of the regulation, which is to ensure that Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU are applied effectively by those authorities.
63. In that regard, in the absence of EU rules, the Member States remain competent, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy, to designate the bodies of the national competition authority which may participate, as a defendant or respondent, in proceedings brought before a national court against a decision that the authority itself has taken, while at the same time ensuring that fundamental rights are observed and that EU competition law is fully effective.