EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CO0232
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017.
VE v WD.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility.
Case C-232/17.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017.
VE v WD.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility.
Case C-232/17.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 —
VE
(Case C‑232/17) ( 1 )
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and legal context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility)
|
1. |
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Admissibility—Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context—Statement of the reasons for requiring an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 16-18) |
|
2. |
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling—Jurisdiction of the Court—Limits—General or hypothetical questions—Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 24) |
Operative part
The request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Central District Court, Buda, Hungary), by decision of 10 April 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.
( 1 ) OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.