Browsing history:

↳
CASE OF FUCHSHUBER AGAINST AUSTRIA
Commission Regulation (EC) No 6/94 of 4 January 1994 suspending the preferential customs duties and re-establishing the Common Customs Tariff duty on imports of small-flowered roses originating in Israel
CASE OF X AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIAJOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES CASADEVALL, ZIEMELE, KOVLER, JOÄŒIENÄ–, Å IKUTA, DE GAETANO AND SICILIANOS
CASE OF HANIF AND KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2236/2003 of 23 December 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch
CASE OF GRADINGER v. AUSTRIA
CASE OF M.A. AND OTHERS AGAINST BULGARIA
CASE OF ORAN v. TURKEY [Extracts]PARTLY DISSENTING, PARTLY CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES SAJÓ, KELLER AND LEMMENS
CASE OF C.B. v. ROMANIA

Document text Analytics

CASE OF MIKHAYLYUK AND PETROV v. UKRAINE

Doc ref: 11932/02 • ECHR ID: 001-96220

Document date: December 10, 2009

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 5

At a glance

Citations by paragraph

Historical distribution of citations

Detailed analytics

Outbound citations

r unique documents cited • o citations total

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

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