Preliminary ruling
[3]: Para 32 The ECJ may decline to give judgement in the absence of a genuine dispute on the basis that it will not consider "general or hypothetical questions".Under the discretionary reference stipulated in Article 267(2) TFEU, a national "court or tribunal" may ask the ECJ to give a preliminary ruling if it considers that a decision on the question is "necessary" to enable it to judge a particular case.[9] The obligation of national courts of last instance to refer for a preliminary ruling when a question of the interpretation of EU law arises is subject to certain exceptions.The ECJ claims jurisdiction to interpret international agreements concluded by the Council of the European Union since they are acts of an EU institution: Case 181/73 Haegeman v Belgium.The ECJ does not interpret national law that is worded identically to EU provisions: Case C-346/93 Kleinwort Benson v City of Glasgow District Council.Based on the same agreement, UK courts must or may ask for a preliminary ruling regarding how Northern Ireland has EU law applied, which is related mainly to trade in goods.The ECJ may choose to rule only on the validity and the interpretation of EU law and to leave the application to the facts to the national court that made the reference: Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch v Union Cycliste Internationale.The decision is then res judicata (at least in the weak sense) and binds the national court a quo that made the reference, and future similar cases on the same issue require no further reference if the answer is "so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt": Case 283/81 CILFIT, ECJ Rules of Procedure Article 104(3).In the United Kingdom when it was a member state, res judicata was in the strong sense: a previous ECJ ruling would bind of its courts: s 3(1) European Communities Act 1972.