- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 1998. # Reisebüro Binder GmbH. # Revision of a judgment - Peliminary ruling - Application manifestly inadmissible. # Case C-116/96 REV.
ECLI:EU:C:1998:169
61996CO0116
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Avis juridique important
61996O0116
European Court reports 1998 Page I-01889
Summary
Keywords
Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - Appraisal by the national courts - Application made by the parties in the main proceedings for revision of a preliminary ruling - Inadmissible
(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 41; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 98 to 100)
Summary
Article 177 of the Treaty establishes a procedure for direct cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, in the course of which the parties concerned are merely invited to submit observations within the legal framework set out by the court making the reference.
Within the limits established by Article 177 of the Treaty, it is thus for the national courts alone to decide on the principle and purpose of any reference to the Court of Justice and it is also for those courts alone to judge whether they have obtained sufficient guidance from the preliminary ruling delivered in response to their reference or whether it appears to them necessary to refer the matter once more to the Court. Accordingly, the parties to the main proceedings cannot rely on Article 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice or on Articles 98 to 100 of the Rules of Procedure in order to seek revision of rulings delivered in pursuance of Article 177. Only the national court to which such a ruling is addressed may, if appropriate, submit new considerations to the Court which might lead it to give a different answer to a question submitted earlier.