- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-307/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingborgs tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 5 June 2013 — Åklagarkammaren i Helsingborg v Lars Ivansson, Carl-Rudolf Palmgren, Kjell Otto Pehrsson, Håkan Rosengren
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0307
62013CN0307
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
27.7.2013
Official Journal of the European Union
C 215/12
(Case C-307/13)
2013/C 215/16
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Åklagarkammaren i Helsingborg
Defendants: Lars Ivansson, Carl-Rudolf Palmgren, Kjell Otto Pehrsson, Håkan Rosengren
Questions referred
1.Does the shortening of a timetable for implementation from 1 May 2003 to 15 April 2003, as occurred on the introduction of paragraph 9 of the Djurskyddsförordningen (2003:105), give rise to an obligation on Sweden, as a Member State, to communicate the draft regulation again in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC?
2.If the answer to question I is that it should have been communicated again, what are the effects in law of the fact that that was not done?