Preliminary reference · referred by the Cour de cassation (France)
Rapporteur
T. von Danwitz
Advocate General
J. Mazák
Bench
11 judgesV. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, J.-C. Bonichot, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Toader, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász, T. von Danwitz, J.-J. Kasel, M. Safjan
27In that regard, suffice it to point out that, according to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, inter alia, Case C-333/07Regie Networks [2008] ECR I-10807, paragraph 46; Case C-478/07Budejovicky Budvar [2009] ECR I-7721, paragraph 63; and Case C-56/09Zanotti [2010] ECR I-4517, paragraph 15).