Talk:Ker-Optika bt v ÀNTSZ Dél- dunántúli Regionális Intézete

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the content flagged for copyright is the judgment of the case. This is similar to that of the case of Keck and Mithouard which also has a page on Wikipedia, with the judgement copied from the same official website. To reword the judgment would be wrong due to many students etc looking to directly quote judgments. If I add a citation, would this be sufficient? --Iloveart&#38;law (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Attribution notice
This article contains text copied from EUR-Lex which allows re-use of the material for commercial or non-commercial purposes. ... disco spinster   talk  20:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because the text copied is the judgment of a case. This is the same with every case on Wikipedia; they all have the official judgments copied word for word. Judgments cannot be written in other words. --Iloveart&#38;law (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)