Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia): Agorà Srl v Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior Snc di Pedrotti Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano, Ciftat soc. coop. arl (Public service contracts — Definition of contracting authorities — Body governed by public law)
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, interpretation of the law, provision of services, public contract, single market, works contract

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/13

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary for the full transposition
into national law of Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive
93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer
contracts, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that Directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 10 May 2001

in Case C-203/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Højesteret): Henning Veedfald v Århus Amtskommu-
ne (1)

(Approximation of laws — Directive 85/374/EEC — Liab-
ility for defective products — Exemption from liability —
Conditions)

(2001/C 200/23)

2. Article 7(c) of Directive 85/374 is to be interpreted as meaning
that the exemption from liability where an activity has no
economic or business purpose does not extend to the case of a
defective product which has been manufactured and used in the
course of a specific medical service which is financed entirely
from public funds and for which the patient is not required to
pay any consideration.

3. Article 9 of Directive 85/374 is to be interpreted as meaning
that,
save for non-material damage whose reparation is
governed solely by national law and the exclusions detailed in
that article as regards damage to an item of property, a Member
State may not restrict the types of material damage, resulting
from death or from personal injury, or from damage to or
destruction of an item of property, which are to be made good.

4.

The national court is required, under Directive 85/374, to
examine under which head the circumstances of the case are to
be categorised, namely whether the case concerns damage
covered either by point (a) or by point (b) of the first paragraph
of Article 9 or non-material damage which may possibly be
covered by national law. The national court may, however, not
decline to award any damages at all under the Directive on the
ground that, where the other conditions of liability are fulfilled,
the damage incurred is not such as to fall under any of the
foregoing heads.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.

(Language of the case: Danish)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

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

In Case C-203/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Højesteret
(Supreme Court) (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Henning
Veedfald and Århus Amtskommune — on the interpretation
of Article 7(a) and (c) and points (a) and (b) of the first
paragraph of Article 9 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of
25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rappor-
teur) and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 7(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
liability for defective products is to be interpreted as meaning
that a defective product is put into circulation when it is used
during the provision of a specific medical service, consisting in
preparing a human organ for transplantation, and the damage
caused to the organ results from that preparatory treatment.

(Fifth Chamber)

of 10 May 2001

in Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo
regionale per la Lombardia): Agorà Srl v Ente Autonomo
Fiera Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior
Snc di Pedrotti Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera
Internazionale di Milano, Ciftat soc. coop. arl (1)

(Public service contracts — Definition of contracting auth-
orities — Body governed by public law)

(2001/C 200/24)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99: reference to the
Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo
regionale (Regional Administrative Court) per la Lombardia

C 200/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.2001

(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Agorà Srl and Ente Autonomo Fiera
Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior Snc di Pedrotti
Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano,
Ciftat soc. coop. arl — on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of
the Chamber,
M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P.
Jann (Rapporteur) and
L. Sevo´ n,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:

’s-Gravenhage (District Court, The Hague) (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between BASF AG and Bureau voor de Industriële
Eigendom (BIE) — on the interpretation of Articles 1 and 3 of
Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of
a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection
products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, V. Skouris,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louter-
man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:

A body

— whose object is to carry on activities relating to the organisation

1.

of fairs, exhibitions and other similar initiatives;

— which is non-profit-making but is administered according to
the criteria of performance, efficiency and cost-effectiveness; and

— which operates in a competitive environment

does not constitute a body governed by public law for the purposes of
the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Council Directive
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts.

(1) OJ C 246 of 28.9.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 10 May 2001

in Case C-258/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage): BASF AG
v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (BIE) (1)

[Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Plant protection products
— Supplementary protection certificate]

(2001/C 200/25)

The concept of a product within the meaning of Article 3 of
Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a
supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products
covers chemical elements and their compounds, as they occur
naturally or by manufacture, including any impurity inevitably
resulting from the manufacturing process, which have general
or specific action against harmful organisms or on plants, parts
of plants or plant products.

2.

3.

4.

Two products which differ only in the proportion of the active
chemical compound to the impurity they contain, one having a
greater percentage of the impurity than the other, must be
regarded as the same product within the meaning of Article 3
of Regulation No 1610/96.

The fact that a marketing authorisation must be obtained for
the new plant protection product which has a different
proportion of active chemical compound to impurity from that
of the former plant protection product is not relevant for the
purposes of establishing whether or not the constituent products
of those plant protection products are the same.

The conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) and (d) of
Regulation No 1610/96 are, in any event, not all satisfied
where a product, as a plant protection product, manufactured
according to a patented process and the subject of a marketing
authorisation, differs from a previously authorised product, as a
plant protection product, only in the proportion of the active
chemical compound to the impurity it contains, the percentage
of impurity being greater in the older product than in the new
one, and where that process patent has been designated as the
basic patent.

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.

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

In Case C-258/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank
of