Browsing history:

↳
CASE OF BIRIUK v. LITHUANIADISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ZAGREBELSKY
CASE OF HENRYK URBAN AND RYSZARD URBAN v. POLAND
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 January 2002. Lutz GmbH and Others.
CASE OF EL GHATET v. SWITZERLANDCONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE SERGHIDES
CASE OF LALA v. THE NETHERLANDSDISSE NTING OPINION OF JUDGE MATSCHER
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1663/81 of 23 June 1981 amending for the fifth time Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79, amending for the second time Regulation (EEC) No 798/80 and amending Regulation (EEC) No 52/81 as regards in particular the period for submission of the documents necessary for certain payments to be made
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 32/93 of 8 January 1993 amending the agricultural conversion rates
Council Regulation (Euratom) No 237/2014 of 13 December 2013 establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation
Commission Regulation (EC) No 973/2007 of 20 August 2007 amending certain EC Regulations on specific statistical domains implementing the statistical classification of economic activities NACE Revision 2
CASE OF BOUGHANEMI v. FRANCEDISS ENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MARTENS

Document text Analytics

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 January 1993. Bioforce GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion München.

C-177/91 • 61991CJ0177 • ECLI:EU:C:1993:10

Inbound citations: 14
•
Cited paragraphs: 4
•
Outbound citations: 5

At a glance

Citations by paragraph

Historical distribution of citations

Detailed analytics

Inbound citations

n0 unique documents citing • rm citations total to e paragraphs

Outbound citations

n unique documents cited • 3 citations total

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846