- 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-3/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0003
62016CN0003
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
18.4.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 136/7
(Case C-3/16)
(2016/C 136/12)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Lucio Cesare Aquino
Respondent: Belgische Staat
Questions referred
1.In the light of the application of the case-law developed by the Court of Justice in the Köbler case (judgment of 30 September 2003, Case C-224/01) (1), and the Traghetti del Mediterraneo case (judgment of 13 June 2006, Case C-173/03) (2) on State liability for wrongdoing by courts which constitutes a breach of EU law, should a court whose decision in the context of an appeal in cassation is not assessed because, by application of a national procedural rule, the complainant, who made a submission in the cassation proceedings, is irrefutably deemed to have withdrawn from proceedings, be regarded as a court of last instance?
2.Is it compatible with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3), read together, that a national court, which under that Treaty provision is obliged to make requests for preliminary rulings to the Court of Justice, rejects a request for such a ruling on the sole ground that the request is formulated in a pleading which, according to the applicable procedural law, should not be taken into account because it was filed late?
3.In a case where the highest of the ordinary courts does not examine a request for a preliminary ruling, should it be assumed that a breach of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU has been committed, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read together, when that court rejects the request, with the only reason given being that ‘[s]ince the grounds of appeal were not admissible for a reason specific to the proceedings before the Hof’, the question would not be asked?
(1) EU:C:2003:513.
(2) EU:C:2006:391.
(3) OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.
* * *
(1) EU:C:2003:513.
(2) EU:C:2006:391.
(3) OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.