CELEX: 62012CB0074
Language: en
Date: 2012-07-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-74/12: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Abd Aziz Tam (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No description of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

6.10.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 303/8
            
         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Abd Aziz Tam
   (Case C-74/12) (1)
   
   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 303/16
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Referring court
   
   Giudice di Pace di Revere
   
      Criminal proceedings against
   
   Abd Aziz Tam
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and of Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a third-country national who has entered or stayed in the country illegally — Admissibility of the criminal offence of illegal stay — Possibility of substituting the fine with an order for expulsion with immediate effect for a period of at least five years or with a home detention (‘permanenza domiciliare’) sentence — Obligations of the Member States during the period prescribed for the transposition of a directive
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is clearly inadmissible.
   
      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.