40In that regard it must be observed that, according to the Court’s consistent case-law, national courts have the widest discretion in referring questions to the Court involving interpretation of relevant provisions of EU law. It is for the national court hearing the proceedings only, which alone is familiar with its national law and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions put by national courts concern the interpretation or the validity of a provision of EU law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. It follows that questions referred by national courts enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court for a preliminary ruling 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, to that effect, judgments of 5 April 2016, PFE, C‑689/13, EU:C:2016:199, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited, and of 16 July 2020, Antonio Capaldo, C‑496/19, EU:C:2020:583, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.