Cases C-339/01, C-343/01 and C-357/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg by orders of 4 September 2001, 10 September 2001 and 11 September 2001 in the appeals brought by Kurt Beck, Christian Kröll and Manfred Laaber
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, consumer information, foodstuff, interpretation of the law, labelling, product quality

C 3/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg by orders of
4 September 2001, 10 September 2001 and 11 September
2001 in the appeals brought by Kurt Beck, Christian Kröll
and Manfred Laaber

of 18 October 2001

(Cases C-339/01, C-343/01 and C-357/01)

in Case C-241/00 P: Kish Glass Co. Ltd v Commission
of the European Communities and Pilkington United
Kingdom Ltd (1)

(2002/C 3/17)

(Appeal — Competition — Dominant position — Market in
float glass — Rights of the complainant — Appeal mani-
festly unfounded)

(2002/C 3/16)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-241/00 P: Kish Glass Co. Ltd, established in Dublin
(Ireland), represented by P. Watson BL and M. Byrne, Solicitor,
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-65/96
Kish Glass v Commission [2000] ECR II-1885 seeking to have
that judgment set aside and the forms of order sought by the
applicant at first instance granted, the other parties to the
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Lyal, assisted and by N. Khan) and Pilkington United
Kingdom Ltd, established in Saint Helens, Merseyside (United
Kingdom), represented by J. Kallaugher — the Court (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamb-
er, A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given an order on 18 October 2001, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Kish Glass Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of 4 September 2001,
10 September 2001 and 11 September 2001 by the Unabhän-
giger Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg (Independent
Administrative Chamber of the Land Vorarlberg), which were
received at
the Court Registry on 10 September 2001
(C-339/01), 12 September 2001 (C-343/01) and on 20 Sep-
tember 2001 (C-357/01), for a preliminary ruling in the
appeals brought by Kurt Beck, Christian Kröll and Manfred
Laaber on the following questions:

1. Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC (1)
of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
the ultimate consumer (now consolidated in European
Parliament
and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of
20 March 2000, OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29; hereinafter
‘the labelling Directive’), under which — subject
to
Community provisions applicable to natural mineral
waters and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses,
the labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
legislation which makes it an
ties, preclude national
offence when marketing foodstuffs:

(a)

to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
tain health, or to create the impression of any such
effect;

(b)

to refer to case histories, recommendations made by
doctors or medical experts’ reports;

(c)

to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
tations of organs of the human body, pictures
of members of the health-care professions or of
sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
to health-care activities?

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/13

2. Do the labelling Directive or Articles 28 and 30 EC
preclude a national provision which, on the placing into
circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-
mation such as that described in question (1) to be affixed
thereto only after prior authorisation by the competent
federal minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is
that the health-related information is consistent with
protecting the consumer from being misled?

(1) OJ L 33, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt, Frankfurt am Main, by order of that court of 10 July
2001 in the case of Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen
GmbH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-363/01)

(2002/C 3/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
(Higher Regional Court), received at the Court Registry on
24 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH v Deutsche Lufthan-
sa AG on the following questions:

1.

Is Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October 1996
on access to the groundhandling market, in particular
Article 16(3) thereof, in conjunction with recital 25 in
the preamble thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that
the managing body of an airport within the meaning of
Article 3 is entitled to demand from a self-handler and/or
a supplier of handling services to third parties payment
of a separate licence fee for the grant of ‘access to airport
installations’ in the sense of an access fee in return for the
opening-up of a commercial opportunity in addition to a
user fee (rental) payable by the self-handler or a supplier
to third parties of handling services for the rental under
contract of airport installations, in this case, passenger
check-in desks;

or alternatively, does Directive 96/67 merely provide
that, for the purposes of determining a user fee, account
is to be taken of the criteria mentioned in Article 16(3)
and regard is to be had to the interest of the managing
body of the airport in achieving a profit?

2.

3.

If the answer to Question 1 — first alternative — is
affirmative, does the airport operator also have the right
to claim such a licence fee from a self-handler and/or
supplier of handling services to third parties (supplier in
the situation of the defendant in the main proceedings)
in sectors where free access to the ground-handling
market was already guaranteed prior to entry into force
of Directive 96/67, in particular in regard to land-side
handling services?

If Question 2 is answered affirmatively, is Directive 96/67
to be interpreted as entitling the managing body within
the meaning of Article 3 also to demand payment of an
additional
licence fee as described in Question 1 for
‘access to airport installations’ from a self-handler and/or
a supplier of services in the situation of the defendant in
the main proceedings who, until entry into force of
Directive 96/67 or of provisions transposing it into
national law, paid (only) rent for the use of the relevant
airport installations?

4. May it even be mandatory to demand (additionally)
payment of a licence fee by a self-handler and/or supplier
of handling services who has hitherto enjoyed free access
to that market, or to the self-handling sector, without
being required to pay an additional licence fee, in order
to prevent unequal treatment in relation to other self-
handlers and suppliers of ground-handling services

(a) who have already hitherto been requested to pay a

supplementary licence fee in addition to a user fee;

(b) who are for the first time granted access to airport
the legal situation
installations on the basis of
created by Directive 96/67 and are henceforth being
requested to pay a licence fee for such access
in addition to a further user fee for use of the
installations?

5.

In so far as Article 16(3) of Directive 96/67 entitles
an airport’s managing body to require payment of a
supplementary licence fee as described above, does a
licence fee which is required to be paid in addition to a
fee for use of check-in desks meet the requirements
of Article 16(3)
in regard to relevance, objectivity,
transparency and non-discrimination where it is deter-
mined according to numbers of passengers (in this case
DM 0,30 per passenger checked in)?

(1) OJ L 272, p. 36.