The applicant challenged this ruling to the Court of Appeal but to no avail as such rulings were not subject to appeal according to the law.

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns social law proceedings during which the national courts abstained from requesting the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a preliminary ruling

Although on 12 July 2017 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters delivered a final ruling in the applicant’s favour, on 3   October 2018 the Supreme Court quashed that ruling and

  28 of 26   June 2018 by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia)?   3.

or dismissing a request for a reference for a preliminary ruling.” 2.

Entry into force of a judicial ruling on an administrative offence and its review “A judicial ruling on an administrative offence shall enter into force after the expiry of the term for lodging an appeal

The court gave the same reasons as those in its ruling of 30 April 2013.

    On 2 October 2013 the Kúria dismissed the applicant’s motion for a preliminary ruling request.

. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundessozialgericht - Germany. # Case 20-75.

#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Köln - Germany.#Phytosanitary examinations.#Case 4-75.

#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Finanzgericht Hamburg - Germany.#Case 106-75.

. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken - Germany. # Case 33/78.

#Ecord Consortium for Russian co-operation prieš Europos Bendrijų Komisiją.#Laikinųjų apsaugos priemonių taikymas.#Byla T-60/98 R.

#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de commerce de Romans - France.#Inadmissibility.#Case C-386/92.

#Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof - Germany.#VAT - Taxable transactions.#Case C-291/92.

#Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie and Tribunalul Bihor.

cases, even those concerning legal relationships which had arisen before the CJEU gave its ruling.

The value of such a claim had to be determined in accordance with the prices applicable at the time of the court’s ruling.

In June 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court partly changed that ruling and determined that S.F. had owned 47.91 hectares of land.

SUR LE MOYEN UNIQUE, PRIS EN SES DEUX BRANCHES : ATTENDU QU'IL EST FAIT GRIEF A L'ARRET ATTAQUE D'AVOIR FAIT DROIT A LA DEMANDE D'EXONERATION DU TICKET MODERATEUR FORMEE PAR RUFFING, ASSURE SOCIAL RECONNU