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?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy