- 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-676/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Ploiești (Romania) lodged on 1 December 2017 — Oana Mădălina Călin v Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Dâmboviţa, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanţelor Public, and Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CN0676
62017CN0676
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
19.2.2018
Official Journal of the European Union
C 63/8
(Case C-676/17)
(2018/C 063/11)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Oana Mădălina Călin
Respondents: Direcţia Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Dâmboviţa, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanţelor Public, and Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu
Question referred
Can Article 4(3) TEU, which refers to the principle of sincere cooperation, Articles 17, 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 110 TFEU, the principle of legal certainty and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness stemming from the principle of procedural autonomy be interpreted as precluding national legislation, namely Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004 on administrative proceedings as interpreted by Ruling No 45/2016 of the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (ICCJ) — Completul pentru dezlegarea unor chestiuni de drept (High Court of Cassation and Justice — Panel for the Resolution of Points of Law), under which the period within which a request for revision based on Article 21(2) of Law No 554/2004 may be submitted is one month from the date of notification of the final judgment subject to revision?