Judgment_paragraph 21 · Asociaţia 'Forumul Judecătorilor din România' and Asociaţia 'Mişcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor' v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Procurorul General al României (C-53/23)

21As regards the admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling, it should be observed that it is clear from the Court’s settled case-law that questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only, inter alia, where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its object or where the problem is hypothetical (judgment of 9 November 2023, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky MV (Scope of the Return Directive), C‑257/22, EU:C:2023:852, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).

Asociaţia 'Forumul Judecătorilor din România' and Asociaţia 'Mişcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor' v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Procurorul General al României (C-53/23)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections