## Facts

- Two Italian companies imported wool into Italy and paid a fixed health inspection levy imposed on imports.
- The companies challenged the levy as incompatible with Community law (EEC Treaty and related measures) and sought reimbursement.
- After losing in lower courts, the dispute reached the Italian Court of Cassation, a court of last instance.
- The Court of Cassation referred questions to the Court of Justice concerning when last-instance national courts must request a preliminary ruling on EU-law interpretation under Article 177 EEC (now Article 267 TFEU).

## Issues

1. When must a national court of last instance refer questions of EU-law interpretation to the Court of Justice under Article 177(3) EEC?
2. May such a court decline to refer because the question is irrelevant, already answered by the Court of Justice, or allegedly obvious (acte clair)?
3. What conditions must be met before a last-instance court can treat an interpretation question as acte clair and decide it without a reference?

## Decision

- The Court of Justice held that the Article 177(3) EEC duty to refer is mandatory for last-instance courts when a necessary EU-law interpretation question arises, subject to limited exceptions.
- No reference is required if:
  - the EU-law question is not relevant to resolving the dispute;
  - the provision has already been interpreted by the Court of Justice (acte éclairé), including where prior case law has already addressed the point of law; or
  - the correct interpretation is so obvious that there is no reasonable doubt (acte clair).
- The acte clair exception is strict: the national court must be satisfied that the interpretation would be equally obvious to courts in other Member States and to the Court of Justice.
- In assessing “obviousness,” the national court must account for EU law’s features, including multilingual authenticity of texts and the need for contextual, objective-oriented interpretation considering EU law’s development.

## Legal Principles

- Article 177(3) EEC (now Article 267(3) TFEU) establishes a cooperative system to secure uniform interpretation and application of EU law and to prevent divergent national decisions.
- A last-instance court determines whether an EU-law interpretation question is necessary and relevant, but if it is, the default rule is referral.
- A last-instance court may forgo a reference only where (1) irrelevance, (2) acte éclairé, or (3) acte clair is established.
- Acte éclairé applies when the Court of Justice has already interpreted the provision or already resolved the same point of law in earlier decisions; a fresh reference is permitted but not required.
- Acte clair requires absence of reasonable doubt assessed in light of:
  - all authentic language versions (not just the forum language);
  - the provision’s context within EU law as a whole; and
  - EU objectives and the state of EU law at the time of application.

## Conclusion

The Court of Justice clarified that last-instance national courts generally must refer necessary EU-law interpretation questions, but may refrain only for irrelevance, prior authoritative interpretation, or a narrowly defined “no reasonable doubt” standard that demands multilingual and contextual analysis aimed at preserving uniformity across Member States.


Srl CILFIT & Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v. Ministry of Health, Case 283/81, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335 (C.J.E.U. 1982)