- 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-244/25, Cabify España: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 1 April 2025 – Cabify España, S.L.U. v Auro New Transport Concept, S.L.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0244
62025CN0244
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
EN
C series
—
C/2025/4566
(Case C-244/25, Cabify España)
(C/2025/4566)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Cabify España, S.L.U.
Defendant: Auro New Transport Concept, S.L.
Questions referred
Is it compatible with the first paragraph of Article 47 and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 19(1) TEU, and the principles of primacy, effectiveness and unity of EU law, for the judicial review of the validity of an arbitral award for infringement of fundamental rules of EU public policy (in casu, Article 101 TFEU) to be purely external, so that the competent court, in accordance with the Law – Articles 8(5) and 41(1) of the Ley de Arbitraje (Law on Arbitration; LA) – cannot review, with full jurisdiction and in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the decision of the arbitrators not to apply mandatory EU law?
Is it compatible with the first paragraph of Article 47 and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 19(1) TEU, and the principles of primacy, effectiveness and unity of EU law, for the judicial review of the validity of an arbitral award for infringement of fundamental rules of EU public policy (in casu, Article 101 TFEU) to be purely external, so that the competent court, in accordance with the Law – Articles 8(5) and 41(1) of the LA – cannot review, with full jurisdiction and in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, whether the arbitrators have correctly applied mandatory Union law in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union?
Is it compatible with the first paragraph of Article 47 and Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 19(1) TEU, and the principles of primacy, effectiveness and unity of EU law, for the judicial review of the validity of an arbitral award for infringement of fundamental rules of EU public policy (in casu, Article 101 TFEU) to be limited by the case-law and criteria set out in the ruling of the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court, Spain) No 146/2024 of 2 December 2024?
—
Law 60/2003 of 23 December on Arbitration.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4566/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—