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) [Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Plant protection products — Supplementary protection certificate]
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dangerous substance, interpretation of the law, pharmaceutical product, plant health product, product safety

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