Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62022CB0619

    Case C-619/22, Sinda & V R: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zemgales rajona tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Sinda & V R’ v Rīgas domes Satiksmes departaments (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to provide the legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Requirement to set out the relationship between the provisions of European Union law of which an interpretation is sought and the applicable national legislation — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)

    OJ C 189, 30.5.2023, p. 4–4 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    30.5.2023   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 189/4


    Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Zemgales rajona tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Sinda & V R’ v Rīgas domes Satiksmes departaments

    (Case C-619/22, (1) Sinda & V R)

    (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to provide the legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Requirement to set out the relationship between the provisions of European Union law of which an interpretation is sought and the applicable national legislation - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)

    (2023/C 189/04)

    Language of the case: Latvian

    Referring court

    Zemgales rajona tiesa

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: SIA ‘Sinda & V R’

    Defendant: Rīgas domes Satiksmes departaments

    Operative part of the order

    The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Zemgales rajona tiesa (District Court, Zemgale, Latvia), by decision of 20 September 2022, is manifestly inadmissible.


    (1)  Date lodged: 27.9.2022.


    Top