Browsing history:

↳
CASE OF MATIOŠAITIS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIAJOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES LEMMENS AND SPANO
CASE OF ILNSEHER v. GERMANYPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SICILIANOS
CASE OF LAWLESS v. IRELAND (No. 3)INDIVIDUAL OPINION OF MR. G. MARIDAKIS
CASE OF SHOFMAN v. RUSSIACONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE LORENZEN
AVTO ATOM DOO KOCANI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
CASE OF URBARSKA OBEC TRENCIANSKE BISKUPICE v. SLOVAKIA
CASE OF STĂVILĂ v. ROMANIACONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE GROZEV
CORRIGENDUM TO:# Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products
CASE OF LUPENI GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
19 CASES AGAINST ITALY (SEE APPENDIX) RELATING TO THE FAILURE TO ENFORCE JUDICIAL EVICTION ORDERS AGAINST TENANTS

Document text Analytics

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 September 2018. EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt.

C-685/16 • 62016CJ0685 • ECLI:EU:C:2018:743

Inbound citations: 16
•
Cited paragraphs: 10
•
Outbound citations: 66

At a glance

Citations by paragraph

Historical distribution of citations

Detailed analytics

Inbound citations

Y unique documents citing • qZ citations total to 3z paragraphs

Outbound citations

6G unique documents cited • Tc 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