EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CO0166
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 June 2018.
Idroenergia Scrl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli - Ufficio delle Dogane di Caserta.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory 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-166/18.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 June 2018.
Idroenergia Scrl v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli - Ufficio delle Dogane di Caserta.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory 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-166/18.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 June 2018 — Idroenergia
(Case C‑166/18)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Lack of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — 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—Manifest inadmissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)
(see paras 11-27)
Operative part
The request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale per la Campania (Regional tax commission for the Campania region, Italy), by decision of 1 February 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.