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 62013CN0307

    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

    OJ C 215, 27.7.2013, p. 12–12 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
    OJ C 215, 27.7.2013, p. 7–7 (HR)

    27.7.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 215/12

    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

    (Case C-307/13)

    2013/C 215/16

    Language of the case: Swedish

    Referring court

    Helsingborgs tingsrätt

    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?
    Top