- 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
Case C-669/21, Gencoal: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim — Portugal) — Gencoal S.A. v Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to present the factual and regulatory context of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Absence of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CB0669
62021CB0669
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 104/12
(Case C-669/21, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) Gencoal)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to present the factual and regulatory context of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling - Absence of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2023/C 104/14)
Language of the case: Portuguese
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Gencoal S.A.
Defendants: Conceito Norte — Consultadoria de Gestão, Lda., BT
Other party: Companhia de Seguros Allianz Portugal SA
Operative part of the order
The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — Juízo Central Cível da Póvoa de Varzim (District Court, Oporto — Central Civil Court No 5, Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal), made by decision of 21 October 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 64, 7.2.2022.