# C_2005315EN.01001101.xml

| 10.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 21 July 2005 in Gintec International Import-Export GmbH v Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V.

(Case C-374/05)

(2005/C 315/21)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof of 21 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Gintec International Import-Export GmbH and Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e.V. on the following questions:

| 1. | Do the provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2), concerning a reference to statements of third parties who lack professional knowledge of the subject and advertising with a prize draw, set not only a minimum standard for the prohibition on advertising of a medicinal product to the general public, but also a definitive maximum standard? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2), concerning a reference to statements of third parties who lack professional knowledge of the subject and advertising with a prize draw, set not only a minimum standard for the prohibition on advertising of a medicinal product to the general public, but also a definitive maximum standard?

1

2

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:






  (a) | Is there an improper or misleading reference to a ‘claim of recovery’ within the meaning of Article 90(j) of Directive 2001/83/EC where the advertiser reports the result of a survey of third parties who lack professional knowledge of the subject with a positive overall evaluation of the medicinal product advertised, without attributing the evaluation to individual fields of application? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

(a)

Is there an improper or misleading reference to a ‘claim of recovery’ within the meaning of Article 90(j) of Directive 2001/83/EC where the advertiser reports the result of a survey of third parties who lack professional knowledge of the subject with a positive overall evaluation of the medicinal product advertised, without attributing the evaluation to individual fields of application?

| (b) | Does the lack of an express prohibition on advertising with a prize draw in Directive 2001/83/EC mean that this is basically permitted, or does Article 87(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC contain a catch-all provision on which the prohibition of internet advertising with a monthly low-value prize draw may be based? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Does the lack of an express prohibition on advertising with a prize draw in Directive 2001/83/EC mean that this is basically permitted, or does Article 87(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC contain a catch-all provision on which the prohibition of internet advertising with a monthly low-value prize draw may be based?

| 3. | Are the above questions to be answered analogously in respect of Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use (3)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are the above questions to be answered analogously in respect of Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use (3)?

3

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

1

(2)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34.

2

(3)  OJ 1992 L 113, p. 13.

3

---