Case C‑366/14

Herrenknecht AG

v

Hév-Sugár kft

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility — Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual background and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling’

Summary — Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 6 November 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual context — Undefined connection between the subject-matter of the case and a jurisdiction clause in the contract at issue — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2) and 94; recommendations of the Court in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings, para. 22)

A request for a preliminary ruling must be succinct but sufficiently complete and must contain all the relevant information to give the Court and the interested persons entitled to submit observations a clear understanding of the factual and legal context of the main proceedings. Those criteria are not fulfilled where the national court fails to present the facts on which the questions referred are based and fails to set out the existence of a possible connection between the subject-matter of that dispute and a jurisdiction clause. The Court is unable to give a useful response to the questions referred and the request for a preliminary ruling must be held to be manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 16, 19, 22, 23)

Case C‑366/14

Herrenknecht AG

v

Hév-Sugár kft

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. és XXIII. kerületi bíróság)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Manifest inadmissibility — Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual background and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling’

Summary — Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 6 November 2014

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Questions referred without sufficient information on the factual context — Undefined connection between the subject-matter of the case and a jurisdiction clause in the contract at issue — Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 53(2) and 94; recommendations of the Court in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings, para. 22)

A request for a preliminary ruling must be succinct but sufficiently complete and must contain all the relevant information to give the Court and the interested persons entitled to submit observations a clear understanding of the factual and legal context of the main proceedings. Those criteria are not fulfilled where the national court fails to present the facts on which the questions referred are based and fails to set out the existence of a possible connection between the subject-matter of that dispute and a jurisdiction clause. The Court is unable to give a useful response to the questions referred and the request for a preliminary ruling must be held to be manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 16, 19, 22, 23)