Judgment_paragraph 27 · LH v OTP banka d.d., anciennement NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR (C-81/24)

27Questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. Accordingly, the Court may refuse to rule on a request for a preliminary ruling made by a national court only 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 purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 23 November 2021, IS (Illegality of the order for reference), C‑564/19, EU:C:2021:949, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).

LH v OTP banka d.d., anciennement NOVA KREDITNA BANKA MARIBOR (C-81/24)

History · 1 version

Connections

Key facts