CELEX: 62013CN0307
Language: en
Date: 2013-06-05 00:00:00
Title: 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

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?