This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CO0318
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 November 2020.
Colt Technology Services SpA and Others v Ministero della Giustizia and Others.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principle of non‑discrimination on grounds of nationality – National legislation on pricing of interception activities ordered by judicial authorities – Failure to take into account the principle of full reimbursement of the costs of telecommunications operators – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory framework of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility.
Case C-318/20.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 November 2020.
Colt Technology Services SpA and Others v Ministero della Giustizia and Others.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principle of non‑discrimination on grounds of nationality – National legislation on pricing of interception activities ordered by judicial authorities – Failure to take into account the principle of full reimbursement of the costs of telecommunications operators – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory framework of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility.
Case C-318/20.
Court reports – general
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2020:969
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 November 2020 – Colt Technology Services and Others
(Case C‑318/20) ( 1 )
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Principle of non‑discrimination on grounds of nationality – National legislation on pricing of interception activities ordered by judicial authorities – Failure to take into account the principle of full reimbursement of the costs of telecommunications operators – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory framework of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility)
|
1. |
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred – Assessment by the national court – Presumption of relevance of the questions referred (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 12-14) |
|
2. |
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful answer – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 53(2) and 94) (see paras 15-17, 20, 21, 23, 24, operative part) |
|
3. |
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual and legislative context – Extent of the obligation in the sphere of competition (267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see para. 22) |
Operative part
The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), by decision of 13 February 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.
( 1 ) OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.