- 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-288/24, Stegmon: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 July 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin – Germany) – Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin v M.R. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Criminal proceedings – Pre-trial detention of the accused person – Consequence of a reference for a preliminary ruling on the main proceedings – Refusal by the referring court to continue the proceedings on the substance of the case until the response of the Court of Justice has been received – Principle of proceeding expeditiously in criminal proceedings particularly in cases involving detention – Recusal of the Chair of the panel hearing the application for legitimate suspicion of conflict of interests)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CB0288
62024CB0288
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 series
—
C/2024/4946
19.8.2024
(Case C-288/24,
Stegmon)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Criminal proceedings - Pre-trial detention of the accused person - Consequence of a reference for a preliminary ruling on the main proceedings - Refusal by the referring court to continue the proceedings on the substance of the case until the response of the Court of Justice has been received - Principle of proceeding expeditiously in criminal proceedings particularly in cases involving detention - Recusal of the Chair of the panel hearing the application for legitimate suspicion of conflict of interests)
(C/2024/4946)
Language of the case: German
Criminal proceedings against
Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin
Operative part of the order
1.Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes, in criminal proceedings subject to a duty to proceed expeditiously on account of the accused person having been imprisoned, a national court which has made a request for a preliminary ruling from continuing the main proceedings pending the Court’s reply to that question, by carrying out procedural steps which have a connection with the questions referred for a preliminary ruling.
2.Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a recusal in respect of a judge from being obtained on the sole ground that that judge is awaiting the decision of the Court in relation to the request for a preliminary ruling which that judge has brought before it where the main proceedings concern a person in custody.
—
Date lodged: 24.4.2024.
The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/4946/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—
* * *