"The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning: (a) the interpretation of the Treaties; (b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union. Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon. Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court."
"The Questions to be Referred: … "
"(1) When assessing whether a declaratory order given in Member State B is irreconcilable with an order for damages in Member State A, is it permissible to base a finding of irreconcilability on the reasoning of the judgment underlying the declaratory order or must the finding be based on the order alone? "(2) Is a judgment which converts an arbitration award into a court order a judgment for the purposes of Article 34(3) of [the Regulation]? "(3) If the Courts of Member State A are seised and a related dispute is later referred to arbitration resulting in mutually exclusive orders from the courts of Member State A and the arbitral tribunal, can recognition of the judgment of Member State A be refused in Member State B pursuant to Article 34(3) of [the Regulation], on the basis that the judgment is irreconcilable with a non Regulation judgment of Member State B converting the arbitration award into a court order and (thereby) falling under the arbitration exception in Article 1(2)(d)? "(4) Is an arbitral award, which limits the compensation for damages to which the injured party is entitled by virtue of a final judgment in another Member State in legal proceedings instituted prior to such proceedings, itself incompatible with Article 19 TEU and [the Regulation], given that the award, with the authorization of a court, may be enforced in the same way as a judgment? "(5) If a party ("
"3. The provisions of Article 177 are absolutely binding on the national judge and, insofar as the second paragraph is concerned, enable him to refer a case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on interpretation or validity. This Article gives national courts the power and, where appropriate, imposes on them the obligation to refer a case for a preliminary ruling, as soon as the judge perceives, either of his own motion or at the request of the parties, that the litigation depends on a point referred to in the first paragraph of Article 177. "4. It follows that national courts have the widest discretion in referring matters to the Court of Justice if they consider that a case pending before them raises questions involving interpretation or consideration of the validity of provisions of Community law, necessitating a decision on their part."
"10. Secondly, it follows from the relationship between paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 177 that the courts or tribunals referred to in paragraph 3 have the same discretion as any other national court or tribunal to ascertain whether a decision on a question of Community law is necessary to enable them to give judgment. Accordingly, those courts or tribunals are not obliged to refer to the Court of Justice a question concerning the interpretation of Community law raised before them if that question is not relevant, that is to say, if the answer to that question, regardless of what it may be, can in no way affect the outcome of the case. "11. If, however, those courts or tribunals consider that recourse to Community law is necessary to enable them to decide a case, Article 177 imposes an obligation on them to refer to the Court of Justice any question of interpretation which may arise."
"The first question, as it seems to me, is whether a decision on some question of Community law is necessary in order to enable this court to give judgment in the appeal that is before it. In my judgment, that question must be answered in the affirmative. In order to give judgment in the present appeal, it is necessary to decide whether or not a party to an agreement prohibited by Article 85(1) is a person to whom Community law gives a right to be compensated in damages. Accordingly, the pre-condition to a reference is satisfied. Further, it is relevant, in my view, to note that the requirement in [what was then] Article 177 is that a decision on the question is necessary to enable this court to give judgment; not that a ruling from the Court of Justice is necessary to enable this court to reach a decision on the question. There is no double threshold of necessity to be surmounted before this court can seek a ruling from the Court of Justice. Once it is clear that the question has to be decided by this court, whether or not to seek the assistance of the Court of Justice is matter of discretion."
"I understand the correct approach in principle of a national court (other than a final court of appeal) to be quite clear: if the facts have been found and the Community law issue is critical to the court's final decision, the appropriate course is ordinarily to refer the issue to the Court of Justice unless the national court can with complete confidence resolve the issue itself. In considering whether it can with complete confidence resolve the issue itself the national court must be fully mindful of the differences between national and Community legislation, of the pitfalls which face a national court venturing into what may be an unfamiliar field, of the need for uniform interpretation throughout the Community and of the great advantages enjoyed by the Court of Justice in construing Community instruments. If the national court has any real doubt, it should ordinarily refer."