Case C-109/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 3 October 2000, in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department against Hacene Akrich
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, admission of aliens, interpretation of the law, labour law, mixed marriage, removal

C 150/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.5.2001

— Infringement of Article 92 of

the EC Treaty (now
Article 87 EC): The Court of First Instance failed to take
into consideration the legal context: La Poste is required
to offer any of Chronopost’s competitors who so requests
access to its network on similar terms, which clearly
indicates that the relationship between La Poste and
Chronopost does not entail a selective advantage for the
benefit of Chronopost.

— Breach of the obligation to state reasons: The Court of
First
Instance ought properly to have explained the
reasoning which led it to conclude — solely because of
the existence of a reserved sector — that La Poste’s
manner of taking into account its full costs was unsatisfac-
tory.

(2)

if so, is the Member State of nationality entitled to refuse:

a)

to revoke any preliminary obstacle to the entry of
the non-national spouse into that Member State (on
the facts of this case an outstanding deportation
order); and

b)

to accord the non-national spouse a right of entry
into its territory?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom), by order of that court
of 3 October 2000, in the case of Secretary of State for
the Home Department against Hacene Akrich

(Case C-109/01)

(2001/C 150/22)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal
Tribunal (United Kingdom) of 3 October 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2001,
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Secretary of State for the
Home Department against Hacene Akrich, on the following
question:

Where a national of a Member State is married to a third
country national who does not qualify under national legis-
lation to enter or reside in that Member State, and moves to
another Member State with the non-national spouse, intending
to exercise Community law rights by working there for only a
limited period of time in order thereafter to claim the benefit
of Community law rights when returning to the Member State
of nationality together with the non-national spouse:

(1)

is the Member State of nationality entitled to regard the
intention of the couple, when moving to the other
Member State, to claim the benefit of Community law
rights when returning to the Member State of nationality,
notwithstanding the non-national spouse’s lack of qualifi-
cation under national legislation, as a reliance on Com-
munity law in order to evade the application of national
legislation; and

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
Förvaltningsdomstolen (Finnish Supreme Administrative
Court) — by decision of that court of 8 March 2001 in
the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket
(Medical Products Agency)

(Case C-113/01)

(2001/C 150/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Högsta För-
valtningsdomstolen of 8 March 2001, which was received at
the Court Registry on 14 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket on the
following questions:

1.

2.

imported as a parallel

Is it compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC for a national
agency to decide that a marketing authorisation for
import
a medicinal product
automatically comes to an end if the original marketing
authorisation for the medicinal product has been with-
drawn at the holder’s request for reasons unconnected
with the effectiveness or the safety of the medicinal
product and despite the fact that the product has a valid
marketing authorisation in the Member State from which
the parallel imports come?

If Community law imposes restrictions or conditions on
the right of a national agency to decide that a marketing
authorisation for parallel imports comes to an end in the
situation referred to in Question 1, what importance
should be accorded to the facts that

a)

the holder of the original marketing authorisation
has obtained a new marketing authorisation for a
medicinal product designed to replace the original
medicinal product but that new product is not in
the same pharmaceutical form (tablets instead of
capsules) and the active ingredient is not exactly the
same (magnesium Omeprazole instead of Omepra-
zole); on the other hand, the national agency con-
siders that the medicinal products are bioequivalent
and that they have the same therapeutic effect;