This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62023CO0474
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2023.
Alfasoft S.A. v Agenția pentru Întreprinderi Mici și Mijlocii, Atragere de Investiții și Promovare a Exportului Cluj-Napoca.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for a reply from the Court – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.
Case C-474/23.
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2023.
Alfasoft S.A. v Agenția pentru Întreprinderi Mici și Mijlocii, Atragere de Investiții și Promovare a Exportului Cluj-Napoca.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for a reply from the Court – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility.
Case C-474/23.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2023:1034
Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2023 –
Alfasoft
(Case C‑474/23)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Requirement to state the reasons justifying the need for a reply from the Court – Lack of sufficient information – Manifest inadmissibility)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Request not explaining why reference to the Court is necessary – Manifest inadmissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94(c))
(see paragraphs 15, 17-19, operative part)
Operative part
The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj, Romania), by decision of 3 July 2023, is manifestly inadmissible.