Judgment_paragraph 24 · BC v S. C. P. Attal et Associés (C-321/24)

24Furthermore, although the interpretation of national law adopted by the French Government in relation to the requirement to use a notary differs from that adopted by the referring court, it must be borne in mind that it is not for the Court, in the context of the procedure laid down in Article 267 TFEU, to rule on the interpretation of national law and to determine whether the interpretation given by the national court is correct, since, in the context of that procedure, which is based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court, any assessment of the facts and of national law is a matter for the national court alone (judgment of 11 January 2024, Nárokuj, C‑755/22, EU:C:2024:10, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).

BC v S. C. P. Attal et Associés (C-321/24)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections