Meilicke v ADV/ORGA AG
The Court of Justice will not answer hypothetical questions that have no relation to the actual facts or purpose of the main proceedings.
Facts
Mr Meilicke, a shareholder in a German company, challenged the validity of a German rule on contributions in kind to the capital of companies, arguing that it was contrary to an EU company law directive. He was an academic lawyer with a theory that the German rule was incompatible with the directive. The German court referred a long list of questions to the Court of Justice, without setting out the facts that would show that the questions were relevant to the case.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice refused to answer the questions. It said that the spirit of cooperation in which the preliminary reference procedure must be conducted requires the national court to have regard to the function entrusted to the Court of Justice, which is to assist in the administration of justice in the Member States and not to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions. The facts had not been established, and it was not clear that the questions were relevant to the decision of the case.
Related cases on preliminary references
- Broekmeulen v Huisarts Registratie Commissie Case 246/80, [1981] ECR 2311
- Consorzio Italian Management v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA Case C-561/19, EU:C:2021:799
- Da Costa en Schaake NV v Nederlandse Belastingadministratie Joined Cases 28/62 to 30/62, [1963] ECR 31
- Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH Case C-54/96, [1997] ECR I-4961
- Elchinov v Natsionalna zdravnoosiguritelna kasa Case C-173/09, [2010] ECR I-8889
- Foglia v Novello (No 1) Case 104/79, [1980] ECR 745
- Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost Case 314/85, [1987] ECR 4199
- HP Bulmer Ltd v J Bollinger SA [1974] Ch 401
Studying EU Law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
