Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62017CN0321

Case C-321/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2017 — OJ (*) v Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

OJ C 382, 13.11.2017, pp. 27–28 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

13.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2017 —  OJ (*1) v Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

(Case C-321/17)

(2017/C 382/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:  OJ (*1)

Defendants: Partena, Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants ASBL, Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti), Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Partenamut) (UNMLibres)

By order of 5 October 2017, the Court (Eighth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.

(*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.

Top