Order — ECLI:EU:C:2011:614
Date: 2011-09-22
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: General provisions;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Fundamental rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance, Liège (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2010 - Richard Lebrun, Marcelle Howet v État belge - SPF Finances (Case C-538/10) Language of the case: French Referring court Tribunal de première instance, Liège Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Richard Lebrun, Marcelle Howet Defendant: État belge - SPF Finances Question referred Do Article 6 of Title I, 'Common Provisions', of the [Treaty on European Union, as amended by the] Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007 amending the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, in force since 1 December 2009 (substantially reproducing the provisions previously contained in Article 6 of Title I of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992, which itself entered into force on 1 November 1993) and Article 234 (formerly 177) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty) of 25 March 1957, on the one hand, and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, on the other hand, preclude a national law, such as that of 12 July 2009 amending Article 26 of the Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the [Constitutional Court], 1 from requiring prior recourse to the Constitutional Court by a national court which finds that a taxpaying citizen is deprived of the effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as incorporated into Community law, by another national law, namely Article 2 of the Law of 24 July 2008, without that national court being able immediately to ensure the direct applicability of Community law to the dispute before it or being able to scrutinise compliance with that convention when the Constitutional Court has recognised the compatibility of the national law with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Title II of the [Belgian] Constitution? ____________ 1 - Moniteur belge, 31 July 2009, p. 51617.