Judgment of the Court of 20 September 2001 in Case C-184/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles): Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) — Council Directive 93/96/EEC — Right of residence for students — National legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allowance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and stateless persons and refugees — Foreign student who has met his own living expenses during the first years of his studies)
Date: 2001-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, interpretation of the law, residence permit, social-security benefit, student

C 317/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.11.2001

court between Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG and
Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbg eV — on
the interpretation of the last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of
Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169), as amended by
Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151,
p. 32), in conjunction with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),
P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
H.A: Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it has ruled:

It is not ‘impossible for practical reasons’, within the meaning of the
last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of
27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive
93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, to set out the compulsory warnings
in full on the container and packaging of a cosmetic product in the
language or languages prescribed in the Member State in which it is
to be marketed, where the producer or distributor wishes to label the
product in nine languages, including eight official languages of the
Community, for economic considerations and in order to facilitate the
movement of the product within the Community, and this entails
abbreviating those warnings on the container and packaging.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 September 2001

in Case C-184/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles): Rudy Grzelczyk
v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-
Neuve (1)

(Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) — Council Directive
93/96/EEC — Right of residence for students — National
legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allow-
ance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC)
No 1612/68 and stateless persons and refugees — Foreign
student who has met his own living expenses during the first
years of his studies)

(2001/C 317/03)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-184/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal du
travail de Nivelles (Industrial Tribunal, Nivelles), (Belgium) for

a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Rudy Grzelczyk and Centre public d’aide sociale
d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve — on the interpretation of
Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) and Council Directive
93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for
students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward.
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 September 2001, in which it has ruled:

Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
EC and 17 EC) preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social
benefit, such as the minimex, from being made conditional, in the
case of nationals of Member States other than the host State where
they are legally resident, on their falling within the scope of
Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on the
freedom of movement for workers within the Community when no
such condition applies to nationals of the host Member State.

(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 September 2001

in Case C-253/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Bremen): Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzoll-
amt Bremerhaven (1)

(Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
Repayment of import duties — Favourable tariff treatment
— Post-clearance production of certificate of authenticity —
Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs
declaration — Concept of ‘special situation’)

(2001/C 317/04)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-253/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Bacardi GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven — on the
interpretation of Articles 236 and 239 of Council Regulation