C-422/98
ECLI:EU:C:1999:113
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61998CO0422
- Citované
- 8× inými rozhodnutiami
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
COLONIA VERSICHERUNG AND OTHERS v BELGIAN STATE
ORDER OF THE COURT 2 March 1999*
In Case C-422/98,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal dc Premiere Instance, Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Colonia Versicherung A G Zweigniederlassung München and Others
and
Belgian State
on the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty,
* Language of the case: French.
I-1281
ORDER OF 2. 3. 1999 — CASE C-422/98
T H E COURT,
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O . Edward, H . Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate General: G. Cosmas, Registrar: R. Grass,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order
1 By judgment of 10 November 1998, received at the Court on 26 November 1998, the Tribunal de Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Brussels, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Article 30 of that Treaty.
2 That judgment was given in proceedings brought by Colonia Versicherung A G Zweigniederlassung München and Others against the Belgian State.
I - 1282
COLONIA VERSICHERUNG AND OTHERS v BELGIAN STATE
3 O n the view that the dispute before it raised a question concerning the interpreta- tion of Community law, the national court stayed proceedings and referred the fol- lowing question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
'Does not Paragraph 210 of the Ministerial Decree of 22 January 1948, by requiring an importer into Belgium of manufactured tobacco products to which tax bands are affixed, where those products are not fit for consumption, to destroy them in Belgium under the supervision of the Belgian customs authorities and by not according probative value to documents drawn up by the customs authorities of another Member State as proof of such destruction, constitute a measure having effects equivalent to a quantitative restriction?'
4 The first point to note is that in order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based (sec, in particular, Joined Cases C-320/90 to C-322/90 Telemarsicabrnzzo and Others v Circostel [1993] ECR 1-393, paragraph 6, and the orders in Case C-l57/92 Pretore di Genova v Banchero [1993] ECR 1-1085, paragraph 4, Casc C-66/97 Banco de Fomento e Exterior v Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim and Others [1997] ECR 1-3757, paragraph 7, Joined Cases C-128/97 and C-137/97 Testa and Modesti [1998] ECR 1-2181, paragraph 5, and Case C-9/98 Agostini v Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées [1998] ECR 1-4261, paragraph 4).
5 It should also be emphasised that the information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but must also make it possible for the governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice (see Agostini, cited above, paragraph 5).
6 In the present case, the information given in the order for reference is insufficient to satisfy those requirements. The national court merely refers the question for a
I-1283
ORDER OF 2. 3. 1999 — CASE C-422/98
preliminary ruling, giving no indication of its basis. It does not describe the factual background to the dispute, its findings of fact, the national legislative context, or the precise reasons for which it is uncertain as to the interpretation of Community law and considers it necessary to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
7 Moreover, in the order for reference the national court assumes knowlege of the forms of order sought by the plaintiffs, the facts stated, and the arguments put forward by the parties in their pleadings.
s It should be recalled that, pursuant to Article 20 of the E C Statute of the Court of Justice only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties (see Testa and Modesti, cited above, paragraph 6). Accordingly, the fact that the national court refers to the observations submitted by the parties to the main proceedings — which, moreover, are likely to contain differing accounts of the dispute — is not sufficient to safeguard the right of each party under the above provision to submit observations.
9 Given the lack of any information concerning the factual and legal context to which the national court alludes, the Court is unable to provide a useful interpretation of Community law.
io In those circumstances, the Court finds, pursuant to Articles 92 and 103(1) of its Rules of Procedure, that the question referred to it for a preliminary ruling is mani- festly inadmissible.
I -1284
COLONIA VERSICHERUNG AND OTHERS v BELGIAN STATE
Costs
1 1 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
O n those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby orders:
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de Première Instance, Brussels, by judgment of 10 November 1998 is inadmissible.
Luxembourg, 2 March 1999.
R. Grass G. O Rodríguez Iglesias
Registrar President
I - 1285