CELEX: 62016CN0589
Language: en
Date: 2016-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-589/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 21 November 2016 — Mario Alexander Filippi and Others

6.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 38/11
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 21 November 2016 — Mario Alexander Filippi and Others
   (Case C-589/16)
   (2017/C 038/15)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Mario Alexander Filippi, Martin Manigatterer, Play For Me GmbH, ATG GmbH, Christian Vöcklinger, Gmalieva s.r.o., PBW GmbH, Felicitas GmbH, Celik KG, Christian Guzy, Martin Klein, Shopping Center Wels Einkaufszentrum GmbH, Game Zone Entertainment AG, Fortuna Advisory Kft., Finanzamt Linz, Klara Matyiko
   
      Defendants: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich, Bezirkshauptmann Eferding, Bezirkshauptmann Ried im Innkreis, Bezirkshauptmann Linz-Land
   
      Question referred
   
   Is Article 47 of the Charter (1) in conjunction with Article 56 et seq. TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in cases in which it is necessary to make an assessment of consistency, national provisions (such as Paragraph 86a(4) of the Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetz (VfGG), Paragraph 38a(4) of the Verwaltungsgerichtsgesetz (VwGG), Paragraph 87(2) of the VfGG or Paragraph 63(1) of the VwGG) are incompatible with those provisions of EU law where — as part of an overall system which in practice has the effect that supreme courts do not carry out any autonomous assessment of the facts or weighing of evidence, and in numerous cases which are in the same position in terms of the question of law raised make only a single decision on the facts in one of those cases and on that basis dismiss all the other appeals in limine — they permit, or do not reliably exclude, that judicial (within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or Article 47 of the Charter) decisions — in particular those made in relation to core areas of EU law, such as for example access to markets or free trade — can then be precluded by decisions of institutions of higher instance which for their part do not comply with the requirements of Article 6(1) of the ECHR or Article 47 of the Charter, without a prior reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling?
   
      (1)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.