 |
| 2015: Stížnost Evropské komisi na porušení práva OSN, Evropy a EU jednáním ČR - důkazy k záverečnému rozhodnutí Komise v roce 2015 najdete v češtině ZDE |
 |
| 2011: Stížnost Evropské komisi na porušení práva OSN, Evropy a EU jednáním ČR - podnět, na základě, kterého bylo v roce 2012 zahájeno první řízení Komise najdete v češtině ZDE |
 |
Žádosti předsedovi Evropské komise od roku 2009 do roku 2013 najdete v angličtině a češtině ZDE
Níže je uveden výše uvedený dokument označený podatelnou SDEU: Cannabis is The Cure, z.s. , IN: 266 70 232, Tylova 963/2, CZ 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic
Court of Justice
EU
Palais de la Cour
de Justice
Boulevard Konrad
Adenauer
Kirchberg
L-2925 Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Subject: Request
for information submitted in accordance with the Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30
May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and
Commission documents, in accordance
with article 15 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union,
in
accordance with article 42 of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
article 10 paragraph 3 and article 11 of the Treaty on European
Union”
Please, provide us with the
information
on how to proceed with pursuing
a guaranteed right of EU citizens according to article 267 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union, when the Czech republic
and the European Court of Human Rights have repeatedly (7x) and
without providing any reasoning, forbid
to pose the following preliminary questions to the European Court of
Justice.
The European Commission has
also repeatedly (2x) refused to bring the case against the Czech
Republic for a wilful, gross violation of EU law to court, while the
Czech Republic and the European Court of Human Rights were presented
proofs by
physicians and expert witnesses that by confiscating the cannabis of
the international research group Cannabis is The Cure, the Czech
Republic has repeatedly and wilfully violated the key articles 1, 2,
3 and 4, as well as several other articles of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Date of submission is marked by
the filing office of the European Court of Justice.
The Preliminary questions to
the European Court of Justice are attached to this request.
Sincerely with thanks,
On behalf of the international
association Cannabis is the Cure, z.s.
Dušan Dvořák, MMCA, chairman
of the board of administration
Addenda:
Prelimanary questions
1) Does article 267 par. 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have to be interpreted as preventing the Supreme Court from taking action, which the Supreme Court cites as reason to refuse to grant permission to pose preliminary questions to the European Court of Justice regarding the unenforceability of legal provisions of the Act 167/1998 Coll. on Addictive Substances (Zákon o návykových látkách, henceforth Addictive Substances Act), based the on the finding of the Czech Supreme Court (ref. No. 8 Tdo 1231/2011, note. also claims of the Czech Constitutional Court ref. No. II. ÚS 664/12, IV. ÚS 4859/12, II. ÚS 289/14, European Court of Human Rights ref. No. 66981/12, 79490/13, 20049/14, 47921 and European Commission CHAP (2012) 00282 and (2014) 03930) that the Addictive Substances Act transposes a legal provision of the European Community, specifically an EC directive, which however must not be transposed.
2) Given that following Act 362/2004 Coll (CZ), which amends the Addictive Substances Act, the legal regime of growing hemp for research (experimental) and industrial purposes has shifted from regime under which growing hemp was not allowed without prior notice to authorities to regime under which growing hemp without prior notice to authorities is allowed up to a growing area of 100m2 per person, does § 29 of the Addictive Substances Act represent a technical regulation in the sense of art. 1 par. 11 of the directive 98/34/EC and is it thus, considering that this clause has not been notified to the European Commission in accordance with art. 8 and 9 of the directive 98/34/EC, unenforceable in terms of the European Court of Justice ruling concerning C-194/94 CIA Security International, point 55? 3) Does the European Commission regulation(EC)No. 1122/2009 for determining of narcotic and non-narcotic hemp varieties following the “Community method for quantitative determination of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol content in hemp varieties” (Annex I of the regulation from November 30, 2009), have to be interpreted as preventing other methods for determining Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol content in hemp varieties and their narcotic effects, than the method listed in the regulation from being enacted? 4) Does art. 5 par. 5 of the Addictive Substances Act represent a regulation in the sense of art. 1 par. 11 of the Directive 98/34/EC since its amendment by Act (CZ) 50/2013 Coll. establishes a new THC content threshold for research (experimental) and industrial purposes, up to 0, 3 % THC content, and is it thus, since the clause has not been notified to the European Commission in accordance with art. 8 and 9 of the directive 98/34/EC, unenforceable in terms of the European Court of Justice ruling concerning C-194/94 CIA Security International, point 55? 5) Does art. 5 par. 5 of the Addictive Substances Act represent a regulation in the sense of art. 1 par. 11 of the Directive 98/34/EC since it changes the legal regime of manipulation with addictive substances from regime under which licences for manipulation with addictive substances could not applied for to a regime under which licences for manipulation can be applied for in accordance with Act No. 141/2009 Coll. (CZ), which amended the Addictive Substances Act and is it thus, considering that this clause has not been notified to the European Commission in accordance with art. 8 and 9 of the directive 98/34/EC, unenforceable in terms of the European Court of Justice ruling concerning C-194/94 CIA Security International, point 55? 6) Does art. 9 of the directive 98/34/EC have to be interpreted as preventing the passing of a regulation without delay for urgent reasons according to art. 7 of the directive for national regularization such as Decree No. 221/2013 Coll. which states the conditions for prescription, preparation, dispensing and use of individually prepared pharmaceutical agents (CZ), which states the requirements for the properties of medicinal hemp? 7) Does art. 24a of the Addictive Substances Act represent a regulation in the sense of art. 1 par. 11 of the Directive 98/34/EC as it establishes the requirement of having a licence for growing hemp and is it thus, since the clause has not been notified to the European Commission in accordance with art. 8 and 9 of the directive 98/34/EC, unenforceable in terms of the European Court of Justice ruling concerning C-194/94 CIA Security International, point 55? 8) Does art. 24b of the Addictive Substances Act represent a regulation in the sense of art. 1 par. 11 of the Directive 98/34/EC as it requires that all medicinal hemp be turned in to the State Institute for Drug Control and is it thus, since the clause has not been notified to the European Commission in accordance with art. 8 and 9 of the directive 98/34/EC, unenforceable in terms of the European Court of Justice ruling concerning C-194/94 CIA Security International, point 55? 9) Does article No. 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have to be interpreted as estopping national regulation such as Act No. 378/2007 Coll. on pharmaceuticals (CZ), Addictive Substances Act and decree No. 221/2013 Coll. (CZ), since these regulations set the requirements for the properties of medicinal hemp which de facto has to be imported from the Netherlands where it is grown for use as a narcotic and which is demonstrably less suitable for medicinal purposes than other (nationally produced or imported) strains of hemp, including non-narcotic hemp strains and non-narcotic methods of application of narcotic hemp, which are not allowed for medicinal use? 10) Considering the findings of the European Court of Justice in C-137/09 Josemans, which explicitly state the admissibility of using narcotic substances such as hemp for medical and research purposes, does article No. 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union have to be interpreted as estopping national regulation which only allows the use of medically unsuitable hemp (imported from the Netherlands), primarily intended for intoxication and under legal sanctions prohibits all growing, research and use of other (nationally produced or imported) hemp strains, which would be more suitable for medicinal purposes? 11)Does art. 15 e) of the Addictive Substances Act represent a regulation in the sense of art. 1 par. 11 of the Directive 98/34/EC as it changes the legal regime of separation substances from hemp for research and medical purposes from regime where this was not allowed to a regime when it may be allowed based on Act No. 50/2013 Coll. (CZ) which amended the Addictive Substances Act and is it thus, since the clause has not been notified to the European Commission in accordance with art. 8 and 9 of the directive 98/34/EC, unenforceable in terms of the European Court of Justice ruling concerning C-194/94 CIA Security International, point 55? |
