This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CA0003
Case C-3/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU law — Rights conferred on individuals — Infringement by a court — Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — National court of last instance)
Case C-3/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU law — Rights conferred on individuals — Infringement by a court — Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — National court of last instance)
Case C-3/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU law — Rights conferred on individuals — Infringement by a court — Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — National court of last instance)
OJ C 151, 15.5.2017, p. 10–11
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
15.5.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 151/10 |
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat
(Case C-3/16) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU law - Rights conferred on individuals - Infringement by a court - Questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Reference to the Court - National court of last instance))
(2017/C 151/14)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hof van beroep te Brussel
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Lucio Cesare Aquino
Defendant: Belgische Staat
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a court against whose decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law may not be regarded as a court adjudicating at last instance, where an appeal on a point of law against a decision of that court is not examined because of discontinuance by the appellant. |
|
2. |
There is no need to answer Question 2. |
|
3. |
The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a court adjudicating at last instance may decline to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling where an appeal on a point of law is dismissed on grounds of inadmissibility specific to the procedure before that court, subject to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. |