CELEX: 62014CB0092
Language: en
Date: 2014-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-92/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung — Romania) — Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran v SC Suport Colect SRL Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 93/13/EEC and 2008/48/EC — Temporal and material scope — Facts preceding the accession of Romania to the European Union — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Failure to implement Union law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Manifest inadmissibility

15.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 315/33
            
         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung — Romania) — Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran v SC Suport Colect SRL
   (Case C-92/14) (1)
   
   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 93/13/EEC and 2008/48/EC - Temporal and material scope - Facts preceding the accession of Romania to the European Union - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - Failure to implement Union law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2014/C 315/53
   Language of the case: Romanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Judecătoria Câmpulung
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran
   
      Defendant: SC Suport Colect SRL
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC are not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.
   In addition, firstly, the Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the third question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) by decision of 25 February 2014; secondly, the fifth question referred for a preliminary ruling by that court is manifestly inadmissible.
   
      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.