62020CO0220_INF
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 10 December 2020 – OO (Suspension of judicial activity)
(Case C‑220/20) (
1
)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – State of national health emergency – Continuity of judicial activity – Postponement of hearings – Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory context of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the reference for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility)
1.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – General or hypothetical questions – Lack of a link between the dispute in the main proceedings and the provision of EU law referred to in the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Inadmissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU)
(see paras 23-26, 35, 36, operative part)
2.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions referred lacking sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Manifest inadmissibility
Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94)
(see paras 27-31, 33, 37-39, operative part)
3.
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Impossibility for the Court to determine the applicability and relevance of other provisions of EU law relied on – Manifest inadmissibility
(Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1));
(see paras 40-43)
Operative part
The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Lanciano (Magistrate, Lanciano, Italy) by decision of 18 May 2020 is manifestly inadmissible.
(
1
)	OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.