Cases C-354/01 and C-355/01: References for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by orders of that court of 3 July 2001 in the cases of 1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse against Gödecke Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH, respectively
Date: 2001-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fixing of prices, health costs, insurance, interpretation of the law, medicinal product, price increase

8.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 348/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Bundesfinanzh-
of, by order of that court of 17 July 2001, in the case
of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and Logistik
against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen

Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V., 6. Verband der Arbeiter-
Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundesknappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse
against Gödecke Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für
pharmazeutische und klinische Forschung GmbH on the
following questions:

(Case C-337/01)

(2001/C 348/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 17 July 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 10 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Hamann International GmbH Spedition and
Logistik against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen, on the
following question:

Is there a removal from customs supervision of re-exported
non-Community goods resulting in the incurring of a customs
debt under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 (1) solely by virtue of the fact that the goods
intended for re-export from the customs territory of the
Community were not placed under the external transit pro-
cedure immediately on removal from the customs warehouse?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

References for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgericht-
shof by orders of that court of 3 July 2001 in the cases of
1. AOK Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betrieb-
skrankenkassen, 3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenk-
assen, 4. Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krank-
enkassen, 5. Verband der Angestelltenkrankenkassen e.V.,
6. Verband der Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen, 7. Bundes-
knappschaft and 8. See-Krankenkasse against Gödecke
Aktiengesellschaft and Intersan, Institut für pharmazeuti-
sche und klinische Forschung GmbH, respectively

(Cases C-354/01 and C-355/01)

(2001/C 348/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichshof of
3 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on 20 September
2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the cases of 1. AOK
Bundesverband, 2. Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen,
3. Bundesverband der Innungskrankenkassen, 4. Bundesver-
band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, 5. Verband der

statutory sickness

1. Are Articles 81 and 82 EC to be interpreted as precluding
national rules under which national leading associations
of
insurance determine binding
maximum amounts for all statutory sickness funds and
compensatory sickness funds up to which the funds bear
the costs of medicines, where the legislature defines the
criteria by which the maximum amounts are to be
calculated, providing in particular that the fixed amounts
must ensure comprehensive and quality-assured treat-
ment of insured persons as well as an adequate range of
therapeutic alternatives, and the determination is subject
to comprehensive review by the courts, which may be
initiated by both insured persons and affected medicinal
product manufacturers?

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Does Article 86(2) EC exempt such a determination from
the
Articles 81 and 82 EC where the purpose of
determination is to safeguard, in the manner provided for
in paragraph 35 SGB V, a sickness insurance scheme
whose existence was endangered by a significant increase
in costs?

3.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2
in the negative:

Are leading associations such as the defendants liable to
claims under Community law for damages and an
injunction even where in determining maximum amounts
they follow a statutory direction, notwithstanding that
national law does not impose any penalty for refusal to
assist in the making of such a determination?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the
case of Nadi Sahin against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

(Case C-369/01)

(2001/C 348/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht