Case C-2/96

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea, Sezione di Strambino)

«(Interpretation of Articles 48, 55, 59, 60, 66, 86 and 90 of the Treaty) »

Order of the Court, 20 March 1996

Summary of the Order

Preliminary rulings – Admissibility – Request not providing any explanation of the factual and legislative context and not setting out the reasons for making a reference to the Court of Justice

(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. 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 also such as to give the Governments of the Member States and other 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 do so is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties. Consequently, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible inasmuch as it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law where the order for reference merely sets out offences contrary to national law with regard to employment procurement and temporary employment and indicates neither the contents of the provisions of national law to which it refers nor the precise reasons which prompted it to question their compatibility with Community law and to consider it necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

20 March 1996 (1)

In Case C-2/96,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea, Sezione di Strambino (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo Data,

on the interpretation of Articles 48, 55, 59, 60, 66, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty with regard to national legislation which precludes private undertakings from acting as intermediaries in the temporary employment market,

THE COURT,

composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.N. Kakouris, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, F.A. Schockweiler, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges,

Advocate General: M.B. Elmer, Registrar: R. Grass,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General, makes the following

1 By order of 14 December 1995, received at the Court on 3 January 1996, the Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea, Sezione di Strambino (Ivrea District Magistrate's Court, Strambino Division) (Italy), referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Articles 48, 55, 59, 60, 66, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty.

2 Those questions were raised in the context of criminal proceedings against Mr Sunino and Mr Data for reasons which were not however made clear in the order for reference.

3 Since it considered that the dispute before it raised certain questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 48, 55, 59, 60, 66, 86 and 90 of the Treaty, the national court referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

3. 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 (see, in particular, the judgment in Joined Cases C-320/90, C-321/90 and C-322/90 Telemarsicabruzzo and Others v Circostel [1993] ECR I-393, paragraph 6, and the orders in Case C-157/92 Pretore di Genova v Banchero [1993] ECR I-1085, paragraph 4, Case C-458/93 Saddik [1995] ECR I-511, paragraph 12, Case C-167/94 Grau Gomis and Others [1995] ECR I-1023, paragraph 8, and Case C-307/95 Max Mara [1995] ECR I-0000, paragraph 6).

4 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 also such as to give the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court (order in Max Mara, paragraph 7). 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 (judgment in Joined Cases 141/81, 142/81 and 143/81 Holdijk and Others [1982] ECR 1299, paragraph 6, and the orders in Saddik, cited above, paragraph 13; Grau Gomis, cited above, paragraph 10; and Max Mara, cited above, paragraph 8).

5 The order for reference contains no indication sufficient to meet those requirements. The national court merely sets out the offences contrary to Italian law with regard to employment procurement and acting as an intermediary between supply and demand on the employment market and/or as provider of labour on a temporary basis for third persons. It indicates neither the contents of the provisions of national law to which it refers nor the precise reasons which prompted it to question their compatibility with Community law and to consider it necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

6 Thus, because the order for reference is too vague as to the legal and factual situations envisaged by the national court, the Court is unable usefully to provide an interpretation of Community law.

7 It must therefore be held at this stage of the proceedings, pursuant to Articles 92 and 103 of the Rules of Procedure, that the request from the national court is manifestly inadmissible.

Costs

8 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.

On those grounds,

THE COURT hereby orders:

The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea, Sezione di Strambino, by order of 14 December 1995 is inadmissible.

Luxembourg, 20 March 1996.

Registrar

President

Language of the case: Italian.