the GDPR.
71
In that regard, although Directive 95/46 was, under Article 94(1) of the GDPR, repealed with effect
from 25 May 2018, that directive was still in force when, on 4 May 2018, the present request for a
preliminary ruling, received at the Court on 9 May 2018, was made. In addition, the first indent of
Article 3(2) and Articles 25, 26 and 28(3) of Directive 95/46 cited in the questions referred, were, in
essence, reproduced in Article 2(2) and Articles 45, 46 and 58 of the GDPR, respectively. Furthermore,
it must be borne in mind that the Court has a duty to interpret all provisions of EU law which national
courts require in order to decide the actions pending before them, even if those provisions are not
expressly indicated in the questions referred to the Court of Justice by those courts (judgment of
2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, C‑897/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:262, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).
On those grounds, the fact that the referring court referred its questions by reference solely to the
provisions of Directive 95/46 cannot render the present request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible.
72
For its part, the German Government bases its objection of inadmissibility on the fact, first, that the
Commissioner merely expressed doubts, and not a definitive opinion, as to the validity of the SCC
Decision and, second, that the referring court failed to ascertain whether Mr Schrems had
unambiguously given his consent to the transfers of data at issue in the main proceedings, which, if that
had been the case, would have the effect of rendering an answer to that question redundant. Lastly, the
United Kingdom Government maintains that the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are
hypothetical since that court did not find that that data had actually been transferred on the basis of that
decision.
73
It follows from settled case-law of the Court that it is solely for the national court before which the
dispute has been brought, 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 referred concern the interpretation or the validity of a
rule 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 only where it appears that the interpretation sought bears no relation to the actual
facts of the main action or its object, 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 (judgments of 16 June 2015, Gauweiler and Others, C‑62/14, EU:C:2015:400, paragraphs 24 and
25; of 2 October 2018, Ministerio Fiscal, C‑207/16, EU:C:2018:788, paragraph 45; and of
19 December 2019, Dobersberger, C‑16/18, EU:C:2019:1110, paragraphs 18 and 19).
74
In the present case, the request for a preliminary ruling contains sufficient factual and legal material to
understand the significance of the questions referred. Furthermore, and most importantly, nothing in
the file before the Court leads to the conclusion that the interpretation of EU law that is requested is
unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its object, or that the problem is hypothetical, inter
alia, on the basis that the transfer of the personal data at issue in the main proceedings may have been
based on the express consent of the data subject of that transfer rather than based on the SCC Decision.
As indicated in the request for a preliminary ruling, Facebook Ireland has acknowledged that it
transfers the personal data of its subscribers residing in the European Union to Facebook Inc. and that
those transfers, the lawfulness of which Mr Schrems disputes, were in large part carried out pursuant to
the standard data protection clauses in the annex to the SCC Decision.
75
Moreover, it is irrelevant to the admissibility of the present request for a preliminary ruling that the
Commissioner did not express a definitive opinion on the validity of that decision in so far as the
referring court considers that an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerning
the interpretation and validity of rules of EU law is necessary in order to dispose of the case in the
main proceedings.
76
It follows that the request for a preliminary ruling is admissible.
Consideration of the questions referred