Case C-1/00 SA: Application brought on 14 December 2000 by Cotecna Inspection SA for leave to attach assets held by the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Djibouti, enforcement of ruling, seizure of goods

C 45/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.2.2001

Application brought on 14 December 2000 by Cotecna
Inspection SA for leave to attach assets held by the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-1/00 SA)

(2001/C 45/11)

An application for leave to attach assets held by the Com-
mission of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 December
2000 by Cotecna Inspection S.A., represented by Jacques
H.J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, of Messrs Akin, Gump,
Strauss, Hauer & Fedd, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8-10
Rue Mathias Hardt.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— grant the applicant leave to attach assets held by the
Commission amounting to USD 2 265 550,63 together
with interest at the legal rate in force in Djibouti from
28 January 2000, being the date of the arbitration award,
and USD 66 000,

with a view to the enforcement of an arbitration award made
against the State of Djibouti which has become enforceable
pursuant to an order made the Tribunal de Première Instance,
Brussels.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt by order of that
court of 7 September 2000 in the case of Agrargenossen-
schaft Pretzsch e.G. against Amt für Landwirtschaft und
Flurneuordnung Anhalt

(Case C-417/00)

(2001/C 45/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungsge-
richt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Higher Administrative Court
for the Land Sachsen-Anhalt) of 7 September 2000, received
at the Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch e.G. v
Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt on the
following questions:

1. On a proper interpretation of the third subparagraph of
Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, (1) does
‘false declaration’ refer to a culpable positive act in the
context of an application for aid, so that failure to report
to the granting authority changes which are relevant to
the application but do not occur until afterwards is not
penalised?

2. Do the so-called ‘simple’ cases of difference in the second
sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 9(2) of the
regulation presuppose the making of a ‘false declaration’
in the application itself, or is it simply a question of
comparing the information given in the application with
the result of the on-the-spot inspection?

(1) OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
KöIn by order of 10 November 2000 in the case of Aventis
Pharma Deutschland GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and
MTK Pharma Vertriebs GmbH

(Case C-433/00)

(2001/C 45/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 10 November 2000 by
the Landgericht KöIn (Regional Court, Cologne) which was
received at the Court Registry on 23 November 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Aventis Pharma Deutschland
GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and MTK Pharma Vertriebs
GmbH on the following questions:

1. Do the provisions governing the central authorisation of
medicinal products in the European Union — in particu-
lar those of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (1) — preclude
the legal possibility of ‘bundling’ (that is to say, the joining
together of several packages, each bearing the necessary
labelling, in order to form a new retail unit) of packages
of medicinal products following importation into one
Member State from another Member State, in such a way
that ‘repackaging’ of medicinal products (that is to say,
the production of new external packaging to which
the importer affixes the foreign trademark without the
authorisation of
is ‘necessary’
within the meaning of the decision of the European Court
of Justice in Case C-232/94 MPA Pharma v Rhône-
Poulenc Pharma (2) and the trademark holder for that
reason cannot prohibit such repackaging?

the trademark holder)

2.

In the event that Question 1 should be answered in the
negative:

Do the rules on the free movement of goods within the
Common Market or other rules of Community law stand
in the way of a prohibition which, in cases of the kind
referred to in Question 1, is directed against ‘repackaging’
on the ground, derived from national trademark law, that
the possibility of creating a bundle package, which,
moreover, exists de facto and de jure, constitutes a less
intrusive interference with the rights of the trademark
holder?

(1) OJ 1993 L 214 of 24.8.1993, p. 1.
(2) [1996] ECR I-3671.