- 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-204/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — István Tivadar Szabó v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax debts accumulated by a commercial company — Director of that company could not be recruited to be a director of another company — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Interpretation requested of provisions of EU law that are inapplicable — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Hypothetical questions — Manifest inadmissibility)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CB0204
62014CB0204
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 431/7
(Case C-204/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax debts accumulated by a commercial company - Director of that company could not be recruited to be a director of another company - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Interpretation requested of provisions of EU law that are inapplicable - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Hypothetical questions - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2014/C 431/12)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: István Tivadar Szabó
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
Operative part of the order
1.The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to provide an answer to the third question posed by the Tatabányai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary).
2.The other questions posed by the aforementioned court are manifestly inadmissible.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.