The aim of this article is to demonstrate, through close reading of the first judgment containing a substantive reasoning on the Racial Equality Directive, that in several respects the ECJ in its preliminary ruling does not provide the national court with a useful answer, as it does not respond to particular questions and because of an unsound or at least confusing way of reasoning. In this respect, the substantive clarification of the RED is not optimal. At a more procedural level the argument is developed that the ECJ should adopt, especially in preliminary ruling procedures, broad, more systematic and thus elaborate, rather than narrow, condensed rulings.