Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2000 in Case C-86/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Questore Macerata v Claudio Peroni (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled)
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, fraud, game of chance, interpretation of the law, provision of services, social policy

C 173/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

1. Declares that,

— by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure
that, within 10 years of
the notification of Council
Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning
the quality of bathing water, the quality of bathing water
conformed to the limit values set in accordance with the
directive, contrary to Article 4(1) thereof;

— by failing to carry out sampling operations in line with
the minimum frequency laid down in the Annex to
Directive 76/160 in respect of inland bathing waters,
contrary to Article 6(1), and

— by failing to carry out sampling operations for the ‘total

coliform’ parameter,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Directive 76/160;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

represented

(J. L. Iglesias Buhigues and U. Wölker, assisted by B. Wägen-
baur), supported by the French Republic (K. Rispal-Bellanger
by
Freistaat Thüringen,
and C. Vasak),
G. M. Berrisch, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of G. Harles, 8-10 Rue
Mathias Hardt and Molkerei und Weichkäserei K-H. Zimmer-
mann GmbH, established in Falkenhain, (Germany), represent-
ed by P. Lotze and S. Lehr, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Faltz, 6 Rue
Heinrich Heine, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of
V.Skouris, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, R. Grass,
Registrar, made an order on 26 October 2000 the operative
part of which is as follows:

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

2. Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel

GmbH are ordered to pay the costs;

3.

The French Republic and the Freistaat Thüringen shall bear
their own costs.

(1) OJ C 33 of 6 February 1999.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 26 October 2000

in Case C-447/98 P: Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH
and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Community protection of designations of origin — Com-
mission Regulation registering the designation ‘Altenburger
Ziegenkäse’ — Application for annulment — Inadmissibility
— Appeal manifestly ill-founded)

(2001/C 173/37)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-447/98 P, Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH, and
Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH, both established in Altenburg
(Germany), represented by M. Lochschelder and T. Klingbell,
of the Cologne Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 rue Carlo Hemmer — appeal
against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) of 15 September 1998 in
Case T-109/97 Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH and Bene
Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Commission [1998] ECR II-3533,
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 15 December 2000

in Case C-86/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Consiglio di Stato): Questore Macerata v Claudio
Peroni (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled)

(2001/C 173/38)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-86/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the the Consiglio di

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/23

Stato (Council of State), Italy for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Questore
Macerata v Claudio Peroni — on the interpretation of the
provisions of
the EC Treaty concerning the freedom to
provide services — the Court (Third Chamber), composed
of: C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet
(President of Chamber),
(Rapporteur), F. Macken,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
General; R. Grass Registrar, has given an order on 15 December
2000, in which it has ruled:

The EC Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves to certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events if
that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives intended
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it
imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.

(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
of 22 February 2001, in the case of The Queen on the
application of Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd against
the Licensing Authority established by the Medicines
Act 1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency),
1) Sangstat UK Ltd and 2) Imtix-Sangstat UK Ltd, inter-
veners

(Case C-106/01)

(2001/C 173/39)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 22 February 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 5 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen on the application
of Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd against the Licensing
Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by
the Medicines Control Agency), Interveners: 1) Sangstat UK
Ltd and 2) Imtix-Sangstat UK Ltd, on the following questions:

1.

In considering a marketing authorisation for a new
product (C) under Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Directive 65/65 (1),
than
(A)
referencing a product

authorised more

6/10 years ago, is a national competent authority ever
entitled to cross-refer, without consent, to data submitted
in support of a product (B) which was authorised within
the last 6/10 years?

2.

If so, may such cross-reference be made in circumstances
where:

(a)

product B was authorised under the Article 4.8(a)
hybrid abridged procedure, referencing product A;
and

(b)

the data to which reference is made consists of
clinical trials which the national competent auth-
ority indicated would be necessary if the marketing
authorisation was to be granted and which were
submitted in order to demonstrate that product B,
though suprabioavailable to product A when admin-
istered in the same dose, is safe?

3.

(a) Does the final sub-paragraph of Article 4.8(a) of
Directive 65/65 (‘the proviso’) apply only to appli-
cations made under Article 4.8(a)(iii) or to appli-
cations made under Article 4.8(a)(i) also?

(b)

Is essential similarity a prerequisite for the use of the
proviso?

4.

Can products ever be essentially similar for the purposes
of Article 4.8(a)(i) and (iii) of Directive 65/65 when they
are not bioequivalent, and if so in what circumstances?

5. What is the meaning of the term pharmaceutical form, as
used by the Court in its Judgment in Case C-368/96
Generics (2)? In particular, do two products have the same
pharmaceutical form when they are administered to the
patient in the form of a solution diluted to a macro-
emulsion, micro-emulsion and nano-dispersion respect-
ively?

6.

Is it consistent with the general principle of non-
discrimination for a national competent authority, faced
with hybrid applications for marketing authorisations
under Article 4.8(a) of Directive 65/65 referencing prod-
uct A for two products, neither of which is bioequivalent
to product A: