Reference number CHAP (2014) 3930

Cannabis is The Cure,z.s, http://cannainsider.eu/
IN: 266 70 232,  Tylova 963/2, CZ 779 00 Olomouc


European Commission
CHAP(2014) 3930 


Preliminary questions to European Court of Justice

These questions with evidence of repeated violations of EU law prohibits the Czech Republic to discuss the EU Court of Justice


Question number three is updated.


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 possibly also (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 Δ 9-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?

Olomouc, 30/05/2015

Dušan Dvořák, MMCA
Chairman of the Board



More information about the proceedings at the European Commission found in the Czech language on http://evropskakomise.blogspot.cz/

More information about the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, which has since 2012 filed seven complaints against Czech Republic finds here http://echr-coe-int.blogspot.cz/ European Court of Human Rights as well as the Czech Constitutional Court always dismissed the complaint on the Czech Republic and a violation of the Convention on Human Rights discussed without any justification. Doctors and forensic experts yet demonstrated that the Czech Republic's conduct caused serious bodily injury, including injury resulting in death.

European Commission complaint in 2013 refused to pass EU Court of Justice, despite evidence of a breach of EU law are unquestionable and brutal.

As decided by the European Commission in 2015, when evidence of gross violations of EU law added?

The damage caused to the research, investors and participants of the research is at least 33 million euros. Damane to thwart legislative arrangements World cannabis growing is € 1,000,000 It was also given the European Commission a request to halt the tender to supply cannabis to pharmacies and supported by the necessary evidence of violation of the Czech and EU law.

European Commission translators in Czech
12. Grounds for the Emergency (for smoking)

Grounds for the emergency:

As stated under point 8 of the notification form, amendments to the Drugs Act and the Act on Addictive Substances were adopted on the initiative of MPs. The amendments to the above acts allow for the use of cannabis in magistral medicinal products for medical use.

The reason for the emergency is that the amendments need to be urgently “brought to life”, including by means of the present draft Decree, so that certified pharmacies may prepare cannabis-containing medicinal products and significantly reduce illegal sale of these products.

Any further delay threatens the health of patients who buy illegally prepared products of unspecified and, above all, unknown cannabinoid content. This situation promotes illegal cannabis cultivation and trafficking, which is linked with other criminal activities associated with organised crime.

Důležité pro řízení - důkazní řetězec justičně exekutivní korupce

ZDROJ: Databáze TRIS Evropské komise

Dodnes nesmí lidé získat kvalitní a cenově dostupnou medicínskou mast, čípky, spray, kapky, tinktury atd., musí jen kouřit, viz citace §§ 24 a) a 24b) zákona o návykových látkách!


Ze zprávy České republiky Evropské komisi k urychlené notifikaci vyhlášky MZ ČR č. 221/2013 Sb. dle Směrnice 98/34/ES s nezákonnou monopolizací 4 holandských genetik konopí firmy Bedrocan v rámci nouzového režimu dne 30.05.2013
 
CITACE zdůvodnění požití naléhavé procedury dle nouzového režimu vyhrazeného katastrofám jako byla v ČR např. metanolová kauza:

Každý další odklad ohrožuje zdraví pacientů, kteří si pořizují nelegálně připravované přípravky s neuvedeným a hlavně neznámým množstvím obsahu konopí. Tato situace podporuje nelegální pěstování a obchod s konopím, který se váže na další kriminální činnosti spojené s organizovaným zločinem.


Have a nice day, good health and well-being of permanent

Dušan Dvořák, MMCA
Cannabis not only cures cancer