Case C-490/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2002-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Sweden, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, carrier, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment

2.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 56/5

4.

5.

Is the conclusion of a contract preceded by advertising
within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Convention
where the other party to the subsequent contract with
the consumer advertised his products by brochure in the
Contracting State of the consumer but did not advertise
the products the consumer subsequently bought in it?

Is there a consumer contract within the meaning of
Article 13 of the Convention where the seller makes an
offer by telephone from his own State to the buyer who
lives in a different State, and the offer is not accepted but
the buyer subsequently buys the product thus offered in
response to a written offer?

6. Does the consumer take the steps necessary for the
conclusion of the contract in his own State within the
meaning of Article 13(3)(b) of the Convention where an
offer is made to him in the State of his contracting
partner and he accepts that offer by telephone from his
own State?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
Frankenthal (Pfalz), by order of that court of 11 October
2001, in criminal proceedings against Felix Kapper

(Case C-476/01)

(2002/C 56/09)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht (District
Court) Frankenthal (Pfalz) of 11 October 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 7 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings against Felix Kapper, on the
following question:

Does Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1) of
29 July 1991 on driving licences preclude a Member State
from refusing to recognise a driving licence where, according
to its investigations, another Member State issued that licence
although the holder of the licence did not have his normal
residence there, and in appropriate cases is actual effect to be
given to that provision in that regard?

(1) OJ L 237, 1991, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Stuttgart by order of 20 November 2001 in the case
of Georgios Orfanopoulos, Natasha Orfanopoulos, Melina
Orfanopoulos and Sofia Orfanopoulos against Land Ba-
den-Württemberg

(Case C-482/01)

(2002/C 56/10)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Stuttgart (Finance Court Stuttgart) of 20 November 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Georgios Orfanopoulos,
Natasha Orfanopoulos, Melina Orfanopoulos and Sofia Orfa-
nopoulos against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following
questions:

1.

Is a restriction on the freedom of movement of a foreign
EU national with many year’s residence in a host State,
ordered on account of a criminal offence under the
Betäubungsmittelgesetz (Law on Narcotics), in conformity
with European Law in terms of Article 39(3) EC on
grounds of public policy, public security or public health,
where, on account of his personal conduct, there is a
justified expectation that he will also commit future
criminal offences and where the spouse of the EU national
and his children cannot reasonably be expected to live in
his State of origin?

2. Does Article 9(1) of Council Directive 64/221/EEC(1) of
25 February 1964 preclude national legislation which no
longer provides for objection proceedings in which an
examination of expediency is also carried out in relation
to a decision of an administrative authority to expel the
holder of a residence permit from the national territory, if
a special body which is independent of the administrative
authority adopting the decision has not been established?

(1) OJ L 56, p. 850.

Action brought on 17 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Sweden

(Case C-490/01)

(2002/C 56/11)

An action against
the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by M. Wolfcarius and C. Tufvesson,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

C 56/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.3.2002

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.

Is Directive 2001/37/EC (1) invalid, in whole or in part,
by reason of:

1.

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 98/76/EC (1) of 1 October 1998
amending Directive 96/26/EC (2) on admission to the
occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger
transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas,
certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications
intended to facilitate for these operators the right to
freedom of establishment in national and international
transport operations the Kingdom of Sweden has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2.

order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs of the
proceedings.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

the inadequacy of Articles 95 and/or 133 EC as a
legal basis;

the use of Articles 95 and 133 EC as a dual legal
basis;

infringement of the principle of proportionality;

infringement of Article 295 EC, the fundamental
right to property and/or Article 20 of TRIPs;

infringement of Article 253 EC and/or the duty to
give reasons;

Pleas in law and main arguments

f.

infringement of the principle of subsidiarity;

Under the binding provisions of Articles 10 and 249 EC
the Member States must take all appropriate measures to
implement directives in national law within the prescribed
period. The period prescribed in Article 2(1) of Directive
98/76/EC ended on 1 October 1999 without the Kingdom
of Sweden having adopted the necessary laws and other
provisions.

g. misuse of powers?

2.

If it is valid, does Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the
Parliament and Council apply only to tobacco products
marketed within the European Community, or does it
apply also to tobacco products packaged within the
European Community for export to third countries?

(1) OJ L 277, 14.10.1998, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 124, 23.5.1996, p. 1.

(1) Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco
products — Commission statement (OJ L 194, 18/07/2001,
p. 26).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Administrative Court), by order of that court dated
6 December 2001, in the case of The Queen on the
application of 1) British American Tobacco (Investments)
Ltd, 2) Imperial Tobacco Ltd against Secretary of State for
Health

(Case C-491/01)

(2002/C 56/12)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Stuttgart by order of that court of 4 December 2001
in the case of Raffaele Oliveri against Land Baden-
Württemberg

(Case C-493/01)

(2002/C 56/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Adminis-
trative Court) dated 6 December 2001, which was received at
the Court Registry on 19 December 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) British
American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, 2) Imperial Tobacco
Ltd against Secretary of State for Health, on the following
questions:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 4 December 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 19 December 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Raffaele Oliveri against Land
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions: