# C_2016136EN.01000702.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2016 — Lucio Cesare Aquino v Belgische Staat

(Case C-3/16)

(2016/C 136/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lucio Cesare Aquino

Appellant:

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In the light of the application of the case-law developed by the Court of Justice in the Köbler case (judgment of 30 September 2003, Case C-224/01) (1), and the Traghetti del Mediterraneo case (judgment of 13 June 2006, Case C-173/03) (2) on State liability for wrongdoing by courts which constitutes a breach of EU law, should a court whose decision in the context of an appeal in cassation is not assessed because, by application of a national procedural rule, the complainant, who made a submission in the cassation proceedings, is irrefutably deemed to have withdrawn from proceedings, be regarded as a court of last instance? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the light of the application of the case-law developed by the Court of Justice in the Köbler case (judgment of 30 September 2003, Case C-224/01) (1), and the Traghetti del Mediterraneo case (judgment of 13 June 2006, Case C-173/03) (2) on State liability for wrongdoing by courts which constitutes a breach of EU law, should a court whose decision in the context of an appeal in cassation is not assessed because, by application of a national procedural rule, the complainant, who made a submission in the cassation proceedings, is irrefutably deemed to have withdrawn from proceedings, be regarded as a court of last instance?

Köbler

1

Traghetti del Mediterraneo

2

| 2. | Is it compatible with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3), read together, that a national court, which under that Treaty provision is obliged to make requests for preliminary rulings to the Court of Justice, rejects a request for such a ruling on the sole ground that the request is formulated in a pleading which, according to the applicable procedural law, should not be taken into account because it was filed late? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it compatible with the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (3), read together, that a national court, which under that Treaty provision is obliged to make requests for preliminary rulings to the Court of Justice, rejects a request for such a ruling on the sole ground that the request is formulated in a pleading which, according to the applicable procedural law, should not be taken into account because it was filed late?

3

| 3. | In a case where the highest of the ordinary courts does not examine a request for a preliminary ruling, should it be assumed that a breach of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU has been committed, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read together, when that court rejects the request, with the only reason given being that ‘[s]ince the grounds of appeal were not admissible for a reason specific to the proceedings before the Hof’, the question would not be asked? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In a case where the highest of the ordinary courts does not examine a request for a preliminary ruling, should it be assumed that a breach of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU has been committed, partly in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read together, when that court rejects the request, with the only reason given being that ‘[s]ince the grounds of appeal were not admissible for a reason specific to the proceedings before the Hof’, the question would not be asked?

[s]ince the grounds of appeal were not admissible for a reason specific to the proceedings before the Hof

---

(1)  EU:C:2003:513.

1

(2)  EU:C:2006:391.

2

(3)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

3

---