Cannabis is The Cure,z.s, IČ: 266 70
232, Tylova 963/2, CZ 779 00 Olomouc
Evropská komise
CHAP(2014) 3930
CHAP(2014) 3930 dodatky námitek – důkazy
Přijměte prosím opravu v textu zaslaném vám dne 3.května
2015 k vaší replice ze dne 30.dubna .2015 pod č.j. Ares
(2015)1848504, která vznikla chybou v překladech, viz
text na http://evropskakomise.blogspot.cz/2015/05/dukazy-evropske-komisi-pred-zaverecnym.html
,
Předběžné otázky Soudnímu dvoru EU uvedené v textu ze dne
3.května 2015 považujte prosím toliko za důkazní argumentaci o
porušení práva EU ve věci pěstování a výroby cannabis.
Je nám známo, že Evropská komise pracuje v jiném právním
rámci než Nejvyšší soud ČR, který, jak bylo doloženo, nedbá povinnosti
vyplývající mu ze článku 267 Smlouvy o fungování EU a odmítá v rozporu se
zákonem a judikaturou tyto předběžné otázky s důkazy o porušení práva EU Soudnímu
dvoru EU položit.
Dne 13. května 2015 Mgr.
Ivan Chalaš, MMCA, místopředseda
Cannabis is
The Cure,z.s, IN: 266 70 232, Tylova 963/2, CZ 779 00
Olomouc
European
Commission
CHAP(2014) 3930
CHAP(2014) 3930
Preliminary questions to
European Court of Justice
These questions prohibits the Czech Republic
to the European Court of Justice
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 (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 Δ9-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,
22/05/2015 Matthew
Zahradnik, McA, board member