| | ECJR-104 (Rules of Procedure)Preliminary reference procedure    
| ECJ (Rules of Procedure) | Article 104 | 1. The decisions of national courts or tribunals referred to in Article 103 shall be communicated to the Member States in the original version, accompanied by a translation into the official language of the State to which they are addressed. Where appropriate on account of the length of the national court's decision, such translation shall be replaced by the translation into the official language of the State to which it is addressed of a summary of the decision, which will serve as a basis for the position to be adopted by that State. The summary shall include the full text of the question or questions referred for a preliminary ruling. That summary shall contain, in particular, in so far as that information appears in the national court's decision, the subject-matter of the main proceedings, the essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings, a succinct presentation of the reasoning in the reference for a preliminary ruling and the case-law and the provisions of Community and domestic law relied on.
In the cases governed by the third paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute, the decisions of national courts or tribunals shall be notified to the States, other than the Member States, which are parties to the EEA Agreement and also to the EFTA Surveillance Authority in the original version, accompanied by a translation of the decision, or where appropriate of a summary, into one of the languages mentioned in Article 29(1), to be chosen by the addressee of the notification.
Where a non-Member State has the right to take part in proceedings for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute, the original version of the decision of the national court or tribunal shall be communicated to it together with a translation of the decision, or where appropriate of a summary, into one of the languages mentioned in Article 29(1), to be chosen by the non-Member State concerned.
2. As regards the representation and attendance of the parties to the main proceedings in the preliminary ruling procedure the Court shall take account of the rules of procedure of the national court or tribunal which made the reference.
3. Where a question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling is identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled, where the answer to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or where the answer to the question admits of no reasonable doubt, the Court may, after informing the court or tribunal which referred the question to it, hearing any observations submitted by the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute and hearing the Advocate General, give its decision by reasoned order in which, if appropriate, reference is made to its previous judgment or to the relevant case-law.
The Court may also give its decision by reasoned order, after informing the court or tribunal which referred the question to it, hearing any observations submitted by the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute and after hearing the Advocate General, where the answer to the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling admits of no reasonable doubt.
4. Without prejudice to paragraph (3) of this Article, the procedure before the Court in the case of a reference for a preliminary ruling shall also include an oral part. However, after the statements of case or written observations referred to Article 23 of the Statute have been submitted, the Court, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur, after informing the persons who under the aforementioned provisions are entitled to submit such statements or observations, may, after hearing the Advocate General, decide otherwise, provided that none of those persons has submitted an application setting out the reasons for which he wishes to be heard. The application shall be submitted within a period of three weeks from service on the party or person 48 of the written statements of case or written observations which have been lodged. That period may be extended by the President.
5. The Court may, after hearing the Advocate General, request clarification from the national court.
6. It shall be for the national court or tribunal to decide as to the costs of the reference. In special circumstances the Court may grant, by way of legal aid, assistance for the purpose of facilitating the representation or attendance of a party. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-323/07-S
Termoraggi | 14 | ECJR-104.3 | 14 En vertu de l’article 104, paragraphe 3, premier alinéa, du règlement de procédure, lorsque la réponse à une question posée à titre préjudiciel peut être clairement déduite de la jurisprudence, la Cour peut, après avoir entendu l’avocat général, statuer par voie d’ordonnance motivée. | C-492/06-S
Consorzio Elisoccorso | 18 | ECJR-104.3 | 18. Under the first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, where the answer to a question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing case-law, the Court may, after hearing the Advocate General, give its decision by reasoned order. | C-6/05
Medipac-Kazantzidis | 30-32 | ECJR-104.5 | 30. Regarding, in the first place, the applicability of Directive 93/36, it is common ground that it applies only to contracts the value of which is equal to or greater than the threshold laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive (see, to that effect, order in Case C59/00 Vestergaard [2001] ECR I-9505, paragraph 19). The file shows that the value of the contract at issue in the main proceedings is EUR 131 500 (including VAT), which is lower than the threshold of application laid down in that directive.
31. In those circumstances, the Court, pursuant to Article 104(5) of its Rules of Procedure, made a written request for clarifications from the national court as to the reasons why it considered that Directive 93/36 was applicable to the contract. That court replied that, for procedural reasons, it was not able to answer such a request. Consequently, the Court decided to hold a hearing, during which the Greek Government confirmed that the value of the contract was lower than the threshold for application of that directive and maintained that the directive did not apply to the main proceedings. The Court accordingly finds that the Austrian Government is correct in arguing that, in those circumstances, an interpretation of Directive 93/36 has no bearing on the outcome of those proceedings.
32. However, a useful reply to the questions referred by the national court calls for the consideration of certain general principles applicable to public procurement. | C-244/02-S
Kauppatalo | 25-26 | ECJR-104.3 | 25 Taking the view that the answer to the questions as thus reformulated may be clearly deduced from its existing case-law, the Court, in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, informed the national court that it intended to give its decision by reasoned order and invited the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to submit any observations which they might wish to make in this regard.
26 None of those persons raised any objection to the Court's intention to give its decision by reasoned order referring to the existing case-law. | C-424/01-S
CS Communications | 26-28 | ECJR-104.3 | 26 By its two questions, which must be considered together, the national tribunal asks, essentially, whether it follows from Directive 89/665, and more particularly from Article 2(4), that when a body responsible for review procedures for the award of public contracts determines an application for interim relief, it is bound or, as the case may be, authorised to take account of the prospects of success of an application for annulment of the decision of the contracting authority based on the unlawfulness of that decision.
27 Taking the view that the answer to those questions did not admit of any reasonable doubt the Court, in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, informed the national tribunal that it intended to give judgment by reasoned order and invited the interested parties referred to in Article 23 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to submit observations on the matter.
28 Only the Commission submitted its observations within the time-limit. While it reiterated its doubts as to the admissibility of the questions referred, it expressed its agreement with the decision of the Court to give judgment by reasoned order. | C310/01-S
Udine | Index | ECJR-104.3 | Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Comune di Udine, Azienda Multiservizi SpA (AMGA) and Diddi Dino Figli Srl, Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione servizi tecnici integrati (AGESI) 1
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Question to which the answer may be clearly deduced from the case-law - Directive 92/50/EEC - Public contracts concerning both products and services - Value of the products greater than that of the services - Application of Directive 93/36/EEC) | C-411/00
Swoboda | 31-32 | ECJR-104.3 | 31. Next, concerning the argument that in Tögel the Court of Justice has already ruled on comparable facts and questions, making it unnecessary to rule in the present case, or at least enabling it to decide by reasoned order, it must be observed that the facts and questions referred in the present case appear to be substantially different from those which gave rise to the judgment in Tögel. In that judgment the Court of Justice was not called upon to rule, in particular, on the question whether a contract for a single purpose but composed of various services, some falling within Annex I A to Directive 92/50 and others within Annex I B, should be classified in accordance with its main purpose.
32. In any case, Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure permits the Court to give a decision by reasoned order in the three situations mentioned therein, but by no means requires it to do so; the Court always retains in such cases the right to rule by means of a judgment. | C-358/00
Buchhändler | 18-19 | ECJR-104.3 | 18 Since it is considered that the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling could be clearly deduced from its case-law, the Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure, informed the referring court that it proposed to give its decision by reasoned order and invited the interested parties referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to submit any observations in that regard.
19 In the observations which they submitted under Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, Buchhändler-Vereinigung, the Deutsche Bibliothek and the Commission did not object to the Court's intention to give its decision by reasoned order. | C-59/00-S
Vestergaard | 17-18 | ECJR-104.3 | 17 Since it considered that the answer to the questions, as reformulated, was clear from the case-law, in particular Case C-359/93 Commission v Netherlands [1995] ECR I-157, the Court, in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, informed the national court that it intended to give its decision by reasoned order and invited the parties referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to submit observations. 18 None of those parties raised any objection to the Court's intention to give its decision by reasoned order referring to the existing case-law. |
|
|
