Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Mlamali

(Case C‑257/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility’

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, Arts 53(2) and 94) (see paras 17-25, 32, 33)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches-du-Rhône — Interpretation of Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44) — Legally resident third-country national — Rejection of a claim for family allowances in respect of a dependent minor child who is himself a third-country national — Non-compliance with the statutory provisions concerning family reunification — Rejection based on the failure to provide a medical certificate issued by the Agence nationale de l’accueil des étrangers et des migrations (National Agency for the reception of foreign nationals and migrants ) — Equal treatment.

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches-du-Rhône (France), made by decision of 13 May 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — Mlamali

(Case C‑257/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Absence of sufficient information concerning the factual and regulatory background to the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility’

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, Arts 53(2) and 94) (see paras 17-25, 32, 33)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches-du-Rhône — Interpretation of Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44) — Legally resident third-country national — Rejection of a claim for family allowances in respect of a dependent minor child who is himself a third-country national — Non-compliance with the statutory provisions concerning family reunification — Rejection based on the failure to provide a medical certificate issued by the Agence nationale de l’accueil des étrangers et des migrations (National Agency for the reception of foreign nationals and migrants ) — Equal treatment.

Operative part

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale des Bouches-du-Rhône (France), made by decision of 13 May 2013, is manifestly inadmissible.