Escolha as funcionalidades experimentais que pretende experimentar

Este documento é um excerto do sítio EUR-Lex

Documento 62017CB0187

    Case C-187/17: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru — Croatia) — Rafaela Alandžak, Ljubica Alandžak, Rafo Alandžak v EUROHERC osiguranje — dioničko društvo za osiguranje imovine i osoba i druge poslove osiguranja (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice)

    OJ C 374, 6.11.2017, p. 12—13 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    6.11.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 374/12


    Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru — Croatia) — Rafaela Alandžak, Ljubica Alandžak, Rafo Alandžak v EUROHERC osiguranje — dioničko društvo za osiguranje imovine i osoba i druge poslove osiguranja

    (Case C-187/17) (1)

    ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice))

    (2017/C 374/17)

    Language of the case: Croatian

    Referring court

    Općinski Sud u Vukovaru

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicants: Rafaela Alandžak, Ljubica Alandžak, Rafo Alandžak

    Defendant: EUROHERC osiguranje — dioničko društvo za osiguranje imovine i osoba i druge poslove osiguranja

    Operative part

    The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Općinski Sud u Vukovaru (Municipal Court of Vukovar, Croatia), by decision of 5 April 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.


    (1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.


    Início