CELEX: 62019CB0009
Language: en
Date: 2019-05-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-9/19: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — SC Mitliv Exim SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying the need for an answer to the question referred — Manifest inadmissibility)

26.8.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 288/9
            
         
      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — SC Mitliv Exim SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
      (Case C-9/19) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying the need for an answer to the question referred - Manifest inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 288/11)
      Language of the case: Romanian
      
         Referring court
      
      Tribunalul București
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: SC Mitliv Exim SRL
      
         Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală and Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
      
         Operative part of the order
      
      The request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest, Romania), made by decision of 8 June 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.
      
         (1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.