Cases C-66/01 to C-74/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat by order of 7 February 2001 in the appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, approximation of laws, foodstuff, interpretation of the law, labelling, public health

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/13

4.

If the answer to questions 1(a) and/or 2(a) and/or 3 is
Yes, has a Member State duly authorised a body under
Article 1(4) of the Second Motor Insurance Directive
when an existing body has the task of providing compen-
sation to victims pursuant only to an agreement with the
relevant authority of the Member State that does not
correspond to the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
those respects, and:

a)

b)

c)

that agreement creates a legal obligation owed to
the relevant authority of
the Member State to
provide compensation to victims which is directly
enforceable by the relevant authority and does not
give such victims a directly enforceable legal right to
claim against that body, but the victim may apply to
the Court for an order that the authority should
enforce the agreement if the authority were to fail to
do so; and

that body carries out that obligation by accepting
and paying claims from victims in accordance with
that agreement; and

the Member State considered in good faith that the
provision of that agreement gave at least as good
protection to victims as the requirements of the
Second Motor Insurance Directive?

5.

If the answer to any of questions 1(a) or 2(a) or 3 is Yes,
and/or if the answer to question 4 is No, does a failure to
comply with the Second Motor Insurance Directive in
that respect constitute a sufficiently serious breach by the
Member State to give rise to liability for damages as a
matter of Community law if it is established that such
damage was caused?

(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.

Action brought on 14 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-65/01)

(2001/C 118/20)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 89/655/EEC (1) of 30 November 1989
concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
for the use of work equipment by workers at work
(second individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), the Italian

Republic has failed to transpose general minimum
requirements and failed to ensure the protection of
workers and thus failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 4(1) and 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.8 of Annex I; and

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission finds that none of the documents referred to
by the Italian authorities contains provisions which correspond
to certain points of Annex I to Directive 89/655/EEC, namely,
point 2.1, the second sentence of point 2.2, the second
subparagraph of point 2.3 and the second subparagraph of
point 2.8.

The Commission therefore concludes that the Italian Republic
has not implemented the relevant provisions of Directive
89/655, thus failing to fulfil its obligations under Community
law.

(1) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13.
(2) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat by order of 7 February 2001 in the
appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel

(Cases C-66/01 to C-74/01)

(2001/C 118/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 7 February 2001 by
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Independent
Administrative Chamber, Salzburg), which was received at the
Court Registry on 14 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the appeals brought by Dr Manfred Hückel on the following
questions:

1. Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
consumer (now consolidated in European Parliament and
Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 — OJ
2000 L 109, p. 29), under which — subject to Com-
munity provisions applicable to natural mineral waters
and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses — the
labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
ties, preclude national
legislation which makes it an
offence when marketing foodstuffs:

C 118/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.4.2001

(a)

(b)

(c)

to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
tain health, or to create the impression of any such
effect;

to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
doctors or medical experts’ reports;

to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
tations of organs of the human body, pictures
of members of the health-care professions or of
sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
to health-care activities?

2. Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC
preclude a national provision which, on the marketing of
foodstuffs, permits health-related information such as
that described in Question 1 to be affixed thereto
only after prior authorisation by the competent federal
minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is that the
health-related information be consistent with protecting
the consumer from being misled?

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures to
implement the provisions set out in its application and that
the existing provisions relied on do not constitute full and
correct transposition.

(1) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 2.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Central
Administrativo, 2a Secça˜o by judgment of that court of
19 December 2000 in the case of EDM — Empresa de
Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pu´ blica

(Case C-77/01)

(2001/C 118/23)

Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Commission of
the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-75/01)

(2001/C 118/22)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 14 February 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by R.B. Wainwright and J. Adda,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should

— Declare that, by failing to bring into force all the measures
necessary to implement fully and correctly Articles 1,
4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12(1)(b) and (c), 12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b)
and 13(2), 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b) and (c), and 23(2) in
conjunction with annexes I, II, IV, V and VI, of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), the
Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under that directive and the third paragraph
of Article 249 of the EC Treaty; and

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Central
Administrativo, 2a Secça˜o (Second Chamber of the Central
Administrative Court) of 19 December 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of EDM — Empresa de
Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pu´ blica on the
following questions:

Question 1

Does the granting of annually repaid loans by a holding
company to its partners constitute ‘economic activity’, within
the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive (1), where
that company’s principle activity is to manage those partners
and, to a certain extent, also guarantee the loans contracted by
them?

Question 2

Likewise: the performance of operations, in the context of a
consortium as in the present case, by a company which is both
a member and the administrator of the consortium, particularly
where they exceed its share as stipulated in the contract, in
return for payment in consideration of its value by the other
members of the consortium?