{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-767-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-767-23)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-03","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:96c5d4","proof":"sha256:5df9c001b06ab0d72783aade49b9e4528dc29e5e37cd94e1316a9cec3c800ba9","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-767-23","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"62023CJ0767","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"24 March 2026 (\n *1\n )","paragraphs":["para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29"]},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1","paragraphs":["para_32"]},{"title":"2","paragraphs":["para_34"]},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"3","paragraphs":["para_37","para_38"]},{"title":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"4","paragraphs":["para_41"]},{"title":"5","paragraphs":["para_43"]},{"title":"6","paragraphs":["para_45"]},{"title":"7","paragraphs":["para_47"]},{"title":"8","paragraphs":["para_49","para_50","para_51"]},{"title":"9","paragraphs":["para_53"]},{"title":"10","paragraphs":["para_55"]},{"title":"11","paragraphs":["para_57"]},{"title":"12","paragraphs":["para_59"]},{"title":"13","paragraphs":["para_61"]},{"title":"14","paragraphs":["para_63"]},{"title":"15","paragraphs":["para_65"]},{"title":"16","paragraphs":["para_67"]},{"title":"17","paragraphs":["para_69","para_70"]},{"title":"Consideration of the question referred","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"18","paragraphs":["para_73"]},{"title":"19","paragraphs":["para_75"]},{"title":"20","paragraphs":["para_77"]},{"title":"21","paragraphs":["para_79"]},{"title":"22","paragraphs":["para_81"]},{"title":"23","paragraphs":["para_83"]},{"title":"24","paragraphs":["para_85"]},{"title":"25","paragraphs":["para_87"]},{"title":"26","paragraphs":["para_89"]},{"title":"27","paragraphs":["para_91"]},{"title":"28","paragraphs":["para_93"]},{"title":"29","paragraphs":["para_95"]},{"title":"30","paragraphs":["para_97"]},{"title":"31","paragraphs":["para_99"]},{"title":"32","paragraphs":["para_101"]},{"title":"33","paragraphs":["para_103"]},{"title":"34","paragraphs":["para_105"]},{"title":"35","paragraphs":["para_107"]},{"title":"36","paragraphs":["para_109"]},{"title":"37","paragraphs":["para_111"]},{"title":"38","paragraphs":["para_113"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"39","paragraphs":["para_116"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraphs":["para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"62023CJ0767","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"24 March 2026 (\n *1\n )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Scope of the obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling – Exceptions to that obligation – Obligation to state reasons for the concrete application of those exceptions – National leg …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑767/23 [Remling] (\n i\n ),","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, Netherlands), made by decision of 13 December 2023, received at the Court on the same day, in the proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"A.M.","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"THE COURT (Grand Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"composed of K. Lenaerts, President, T. von Danwitz, Vice-President, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe, L. Arastey Sahún and J. Passer, Presidents of Chambers, S. Rodin, E. Regan, D. Gratsias, M. Gavalec (Rapporteur), Z. Csehi, S. Gervasoni and N. Fenger, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Advocate General: T. Ćapeta,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Lamote, Administrator,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 March 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"A.M., by E.C. Gelok, advocate,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"the Netherlands Government, by M.K. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"the German Government, by R. Kanitz, acting as Agent,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"the Italian Government, by S. Fiorentino, acting as Agent,","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"the Finnish Government, by A. Laine and M. Pere, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"the European Commission, by F. Ronkes Agerbeek and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 June 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"1","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in combination with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"The request has been made in proceedings between A.M., a third-country national, and the Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (State Secretary for Justice and Security, Netherlands) (‘the State Secretary’) concerning the latter’s refusal to issue a residence permit to A.M.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Article 91(2) of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 (Law on foreign nationals of 2000), of 23 November 2000 (Stb. 2000, No 495; ‘the Law on foreign nationals’), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"‘Should the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State [(Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, Netherlands)] consider that a complaint raised cannot give rise to an annulment, it may confine itself to that finding in the grounds for its decision.’","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"A.M., who is of Moroccan nationality and whose wife and children reside in the Netherlands and hold Netherlands nationality, lodged an application to the State Secretary for a residence permit valid throughout the territory of the European Union. By a decision of 8 October 2019, that application was rejected on the ground that A.M. already held a residence permit in Spain.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"After having lodged a complaint against that decision, which was rejected by a decision of the State Secretary of 19 May 2020, A.M. brought an action against that latter decision before the rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Utrecht (District Court, The Hague, sitting in Utrecht, Netherlands).","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"By a judgment of 5 March 2021, that court dismissed that action on the ground that, in accordance with the judgment of 10 May 2017, Chavez-Vilchez and Others ( C‑133/15 , EU:C:2017:354 ), it was for A.M., with a view to obtaining the residence permit applied for, to demonstrate that his children did not hold a residence permit in Spain or that they could not obtain one.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"A.M. brought an appeal against that judgment before the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State), which is the referring court. In that appeal, A.M. disputes, first of all, the interpretation adopted by the rechtbank Den Haag, …","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"The referring court considers that the answer to the question of interpretation of EU law raised by A.M. is clear from the Court’s case-law. Therefore, in accordance with the case-law arising from the judgments of 6 October 1982, Cilfit ( 283/81 , EU:C:1982:335 ), and of 6 October 2021, Consorzio It …","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"‘The appeal does not result in the setting aside of the judgment [of the court of first instance]. There is no need to give further reasons for this finding.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"The notice of appeal does not contain any questions which need to be answered in the interests of uniformity and development of the law or judicial protection in a general sense (Article 91(2) of the Law on foreign nationals).’","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"That power to resort to summary reasoning, provided for in Article 91(2) of the Law on foreign nationals, reflects the balance intended by the Netherlands legislature, when adopting that law, between the desire to generalise the possibility of bringing an appeal in any case involving immigration law …","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"The referring court emphasises that it is entitled, inter alia, to reason its decisions in a summary manner where the grounds put forward before it are ineffective or where they are limited to challenging the application of its settled case-law by the court of first instance, without clearly establi …","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"The referring court considers that, even in the case of summary reasoning, the individual concerned enjoys effective judicial protection, since each case relating to immigration law is subject to a thorough and detailed examination by the court of first instance, before which the third-country natio …","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"That court also notes that the chamber specialising in immigration law delivered 11047 judgments on the merits during the period covering the years 2020 to 2023, 85% of which were reasoned summarily. In that regard, it indicates that EU law has a growing influence on immigration law and observes tha …","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"The referring court adds that, when it reasons its decision in a summary manner, it incorporates the operative part of the decision delivered at first instance without necessarily reproducing the entirety of its reasoning. On that point, it states that it could arrive at the same result as that adop …","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"The referring court considers, referring in particular to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of 24 April 2018, Baydar v. the Netherlands (CE:ECHR:2018:0424JUD005538514), that the power conferred on it by Article 91(2) of the Law on foreign nationals to reason summarily compli …","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"However, the referring court notes that it follows from paragraph 51 of the judgment of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi ( C‑561/19 , EU:C:2021:799 ), that the decision of a national court or tribunal of last instance, which considers itself relieved of the oblig …","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"In that regard, the referring court notes that it is apparent from paragraphs 61 to 65 of the judgment of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi ( C‑561/19 , EU:C:2021:799 ), that, where a national court or tribunal of last instance declares an action inadmissible on g …","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"In those circumstances, the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"‘Must the third paragraph of Article 267 [TFEU], read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the [Charter], be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Article 91(2) of the [Law on foreign nationals], under which the Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State (Ad …","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Consideration of the question referred","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a national court or tribunal of last instance may rule on …","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"It should be recalled that the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU is the keystone of the judicial system established by the Treaties. It sets up a dialogue between one court and another, specifically between the Court of Justice and the courts and tribunals of the Member S …","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"Where there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decisions of a court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal is in principle obliged to make a reference to the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question concerning the interpretation …","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"The obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling is based on cooperation, established with a view to ensuring the proper application and uniform interpretation of EU law in all the Member States, between national cou …","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"22","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"A national court or tribunal of last instance can therefore be relieved of that obligation only if it is in a situation corresponding to one of the three Cilfit exceptions. Such a court must therefore take upon itself, independently and with all the requisite attention, the responsibility for determ …","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"23","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"In that regard, it follows from the system established by Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, that, if a national court or tribunal of last instance considers that one of the three Cilfit exceptions applies and takes the view, therefore, that it …","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"24","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"Thus, given the fundamental role of the preliminary ruling procedure referred to in Article 267 TFEU in the EU legal order, a national court or tribunal of last instance cannot reject grounds which raise a question concerning the interpretation or validity of a provision of EU law without first asse …","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"25","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"That interpretation does not call into question the case-law deriving from the judgments of 15 March 2017, Aquino ( C‑3/16 , EU:C:2017:209 , paragraph  56 ), and of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi ( C‑561/19 , EU:C:2021:799 , paragraph  61 ), according to which …","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"26","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Save for that scenario, the dismissal of an action on the basis of summary reasoning, consisting solely in finding that the conditions to which the national legislation makes the use of such reasoning subject are satisfied in the present case, cannot satisfy the obligation incumbent on national cour …","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"27","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"It is true that the ECtHR has held, in particular in the judgment of 24 April 2018, Baydar v. the Netherlands (CE:ECHR:2018:0424JUD005538514, §§ 20, 48 and 51), that there was no reason to declare incompatible with the provisions of the ECHR Netherlands legislation analogous to that at issue in the main proceedings, which allowed the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) to dismiss an appeal on a point of law on the basis of summary reasoning.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"28","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"That being said, the case-law of the ECtHR, developed from the perspective of respect for the right to a fair trial guaranteed in Article 6(1) ECHR, merely envisages the scenario in which a party to a dispute has explicitly invited the court seised to make a request for a preliminary ruling. As the …","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"29","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"As far as EU law is concerned, however, the obligation on national courts or tribunals of last instance to set out the reasons why they consider that one of the three Cilfit exceptions applies to the dispute before them is required where one of the parties to that dispute relies on EU law, it being …","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"30","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"In that context, it should be borne in mind that, in providing that a request for a preliminary ruling may be submitted to the Court where a ‘question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal [of a Member State]’, the second and third paragraphs of Article 267 TFEU do not restrict that …","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"31","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"Accordingly, that obligation to state reasons also applies to a national court or tribunal of last instance in the situation where, although the parties to the dispute in question have not relied on EU law, it has, under its national law (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 December 1995, van Schij …","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"32","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"It follows that, where a Member State authorises such a court to resort to summary reasoning, with the aim of ensuring the sound administration of justice by reducing the length of court proceedings and by allowing the said court to devote most of its resources to the resolution of cases which are o …","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"33","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"Such an obligation is deemed to be satisfied where a national court or tribunal of last instance expressly states that it intends to appropriate the grounds relied on by the lower court in the dispute concerned, provided that that lower court set out the reasons why it considered either that the que …","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"34","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"Outside of that scenario, the reasoning incumbent upon national courts or tribunals of last instance must be adapted to the factual and legal circumstances of the dispute in question and requires them, in all cases, to set out the specific and concrete reasons why they consider that there is no need to refer the matter to the Court for a preliminary ruling.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"35","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"In terms of the specific and concrete reasoning required to justify the application of one of the three Cilfit exceptions, however, it should, as a general rule, be capable of being succinct where a national court or tribunal of last instance considers that the questions suggested to it by one or mo …","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"36","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Likewise, where the question raised is materially identical to a question that has already been the subject of a preliminary ruling in a similar case, or, a fortiori, in the same national proceedings (judgments of 27 March 1963, Da Costa and Others, 28/62 to 30/62 , EU:C:1963:6 , pp. 37 and 38; of 6 …","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"37","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Finally, as a general rule, a fuller statement of reasons will also be required to demonstrate that the correct interpretation of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt, since the existence of such a possibility must be assessed in the light of the specific characteristic …","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"38","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a national court or tribunal o …","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"39","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"The third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial re …","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"(\n *1\n ) Language of the case: Dutch.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"(\n i\n ) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_121"}],"word_count":5247,"cites":["C-133/15","C-561/19","C-144/23","C-3/16","C-2/06","C-561/11","C-430/93","C-431/93","C-168/05","C-600/19"],"sha256":"47358b5e3cf34c89b33d77694e23efb2fe009898fa949bb47cdcd02a365aed99","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62023CJ0767.ENG.xhtml.ECR_62023CJ0767_EN_01.html","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T17:46:44.296+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-767-23","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-767-23","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-767-23","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-767-23","verification":{"stored_sha256":"47358b5e3cf34c89b33d77694e23efb2fe009898fa949bb47cdcd02a365aed99","recomputed_sha256":"47358b5e3cf34c89b33d77694e23efb2fe009898fa949bb47cdcd02a365aed99","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-11-03T12:29:27.533Z"},"verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:eu:c-767-23","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":10,"word_count":5247,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:5df9c001b06ab0d72783aade49b9e4528dc29e5e37cd94e1316a9cec3c800ba9","version":"legal-2026-11-03","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T08:46:54","content_hash":"sha256:5df9c001b06ab0d72783aade49b9e4528dc29e5e37cd94e1316a9cec3c800ba9","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T13:29:27.876Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-767-23","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-767-23"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-767-23"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-767-23"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"withheld":{"item.cited_by":3},"access":{"status":"partner_key_required","header":"x-partner-key","contact":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/kontakt","note":"Facts and counts are public. Relationships and decision paths stay inside NovaCopilot."},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-767-23","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-a86dc90438de9312d23f8abd3ad7069c","response_hash":"sha256:5df9c001b06ab0d72783aade49b9e4528dc29e5e37cd94e1316a9cec3c800ba9"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T12:29:28.068Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-767-23&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":8894}}