EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CO0680
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 April 2019.
HJ v II.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law applicable to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Hague Protocol — Insufficient statement of reasons which led the referring court to have doubts as to the interpretation of EU law — Manifest inadmissibility.
Case C-680/18.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 April 2019.
HJ v II.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law applicable to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Hague Protocol — Insufficient statement of reasons which led the referring court to have doubts as to the interpretation of EU law — Manifest inadmissibility.
Case C-680/18.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 — HJ
(Case C‑680/18)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Law applicable to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Hague Protocol — Insufficient statement of reasons which led the referring court to have doubts as to the interpretation of EU law — Manifest inadmissibility)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Inadmissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94; Council Regulation No 4/2009, Art. 15)
(see paras 12, 14-18)
Operative part
The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 5 (Prague 5 District Court, Czech Republic), by decision of 29 October 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.