Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — Adiamix

(Case C-368/12)

‛Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Request for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Commission Decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Recovery of aid — Assessment of the validity of an EU act — Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the national court — Assessment of the need for, and relevance of, the questions referred (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 16)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Challenging the validity of an act of the Union before the national courts — Assessment by the national court — Doubts as to validity — Obligation to refer (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 17-19)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 20-22, 24, 25, 27-34)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — Validity of Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38).

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France), by decision of 26 July 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — Adiamix

(Case C-368/12)

‛Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Request for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Commission Decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Recovery of aid — Assessment of the validity of an EU act — Lack of information on the reasons justifying the need for a reply to the questions referred — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the national court — Assessment of the need for, and relevance of, the questions referred (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 16)

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Challenging the validity of an act of the Union before the national courts — Assessment by the national court — Doubts as to validity — Obligation to refer (Art. 267 TFEU) (see paras 17-19)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference giving no details of the relevant facts or legislation and not setting out the reasons for making that reference to the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 94) (see paras 20-22, 24, 25, 27-34)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes — Validity of Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38).

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Nantes (France), by decision of 26 July 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.