- 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-92/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung — Romania) — Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran v SC Suport Colect SRL Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 93/13/EEC and 2008/48/EC — Temporal and material scope — Facts preceding the accession of Romania to the European Union — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Failure to implement Union law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Manifest inadmissibility
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CB0092
62014CB0092
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
15.9.2014
Official Journal of the European Union
C 315/33
(Case C-92/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 93/13/EEC and 2008/48/EC - Temporal and material scope - Facts preceding the accession of Romania to the European Union - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - Failure to implement Union law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Manifest inadmissibility)
2014/C 315/53
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran
Defendant: SC Suport Colect SRL
Operative part of the order
Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC are not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.
In addition, firstly, the Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the third question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) by decision of 25 February 2014; secondly, the fifth question referred for a preliminary ruling by that court is manifestly inadmissible.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.