Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 1998. Criminal proceedings against Italia Testa and Mario Modesti, intervener: Società Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (SIAE).
C-128/97 • 61997CO0128 • ECLI:EU:C:1998:187
- Inbound citations: 20
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
Avis juridique important
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 1998. - Criminal proceedings against Italia Testa and Mario Modesti, intervener: Società Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (SIAE). - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Pretura circondariale di Roma - Italy. - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility. - Joined cases C-128/97 and C-137/97. European Court reports 1998 Page I-02181
Summary
Preliminary rulings - Admissibility - Questions raised without sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context - Questions raised in a context precluding a useful reply
(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)
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.
In that respect 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 give the Governments of the Member States and interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court.
It is the Court's duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.
A request by a national court which fails to give sufficient details of the national legislative context of the questions which it has put to the Court and to state the precise reasons which prompted it to examine the compatibility with Community law of certain provisions of national law or the reasons why it considers an answer to those questions to be necessary for the resolution of the dispute before it is consequently manifestly inadmissible in so far as it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law.