Browsing history:

↳
CASE OF PUTO AND OTHERS AGAINST ALBANIA AND 3 OTHER CASES
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 210/87 of 23 January 1987 introducing a countervailing charge on sweet oranges originating in Algeria
CASE OF FÜRST-PFEIFER v. AUSTRIADISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOTOC
H. v. FINLANDDISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. J. LIDDY, JOINED BY
Règlement (CEE) n 1086/71 de la Commission, du 27 mai 1971, fixant le correctif applicable à la restitution pour les céréales
CASE OF CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIAPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 295/82 of 8 February 1982 fixing the import levies on white sugar and raw sugar
CASE OF MUHAMMAD AND MUHAMMAD v. ROMANIACONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE ELÓSEGUI
CASE OF ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEYPARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GÖLCÜKLÜ
CASE OF BRAGA AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

Document text Analytics

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 January 2022. Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN.

C-261/20 • 62020CJ0261 • ECLI:EU:C:2022:33

Inbound citations: 44
•
Cited paragraphs: 14
•
Outbound citations: 80

At a glance

Citations by paragraph

Historical distribution of citations

Detailed analytics

Inbound citations

ye unique documents citing • RE citations total to Z0 paragraphs

Outbound citations

Nq unique documents cited • QH 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