This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CO0088
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 May 2021.
Criminal proceedings against ENR Grenelle Habitat SARL and Others.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Fundamental rights – Ne bis in idem principle – Joint imposition of administrative and criminal penalties for identical facts – Cold calling – Misleading commercial practice – Insufficient justification for a reference for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility.
Case C-88/20.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 May 2021.
Criminal proceedings against ENR Grenelle Habitat SARL and Others.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Fundamental rights – Ne bis in idem principle – Joint imposition of administrative and criminal penalties for identical facts – Cold calling – Misleading commercial practice – Insufficient justification for a reference for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility.
Case C-88/20.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2021:407
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 May 2021 – ENR Grenelle Habitat and Others
(Case C‑88/20) ( 1 )
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Fundamental rights – Ne bis in idem principle – Joint imposition of administrative and criminal penalties for identical facts – Cold calling – Misleading commercial practice – Insufficient justification for a reference for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility)
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; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 53(2) and 94)
(see paras 28-37, 39, operative part)
Operative part
The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the tribunal correctionnel de Bordeaux (Criminal Court, Bordeaux, France), by decision of 12 December 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.
( 1 ) OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.