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